09-05-2003 21:17									#1
	If no WMD found; will Bush be made out to be a liar? Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0305080027may08,1,4289625.story Still looking for Hussein's destructive weaponry Managing rumors that the Bush White House would be `amazed' if WMDs were found Advertisement Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate. Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist based in Austin, Texas May 8, 2003 Austin, Texas -- "We ought to be beating our chests every day. We ought to look in a mirror and be proud, and stick out our chests and suck in our bellies, and say, `Damn, we're Americans!' " --Jay Garner, retired Army lieutenant general and the man in charge of the American occupation of Iraq Thus it is with a sense of profound relief that one hears the news that Garner is about to be replaced by a civilian with nation-building experience. I realize we have all been too busy with the Laci Peterson affair to notice that we're still sitting on a powder keg in Iraq. In case you missed it, a million Iraqi Shiites made pilgrimage to Karbala, screaming, "No to America!" Funny how media attention slips just at the diciest moments. I doubt the United States was in this much danger at any point during the actual war. Whether this endeavor in Iraq will turn out to be worth the doing is now at a critical point, and the media have decided it's no longer a story. Boy, are we not being served well by American journalism. Anent the current difficulties, Newsweek's May 12 report on U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's favorite Iraqi, Ahmed Chalabi, leaves one with the strong impression we should not be putting all our eggs in that particular basket. But the weirdest media reaction of all is to the ongoing non-appearance of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. More and more stories quoting ever-unnamed administration officials appear saying the administration would be "amazed if we found weapons-grade plutonium or uranium" and that finding large volumes of chemical or biological material is "unlikely." Look, if there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it means either our government lied to us in order to get us into an unnecessary war or the government was disastrously misinformed by an incompetent intelligence apparatus. In either case, it's a terribly serious situation. What I cannot believe is that respected journalists, most notably New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, would simply dismiss the non-existent weapons of mass destruction as though it made no difference. Of course it matters if our government lies to us. Why do you think people were so angry at Lyndon Johnson over the Gulf of Tonkin? At Richard Nixon over the "secret war" in Cambodia? Even at Bill Clinton over the less-cosmic matter of whether he had sex with "that woman." If it makes no difference whether the government lied, why is Friedman a journalist? Why does journalism exist at all? Non-existent weapons of mass destruction also present us with a huge international credibility problem, particularly since the Bush administration now feels entitled to "punish" those countries that did not join the "coalition of willing," as we so preciously called those who caved in to our threats to cut off foreign aid. Come on, think about this. The Bush administration apparently feels entitled to take actions punishing old friends, including Mexico and Canada--not to mention the Europeans--for not siding with us in a war we may have lied about? This is not going to sit well with the rest of the world. Seymour Hersh's reportage in the current New Yorker should be read carefully. The Friedman camp's reasoning on "lies don't matter" is that Saddam Hussein was such a miserable human being that taking him out was worthy in and of itself. As a human-rights supporter all these years, I made that argument, too. I even made it when the Reagan administration was giving Hussein weapons of mass destruction. But that was not the case made by President Bush. He said Hussein was a clear and present danger who posed an imminent threat to the United States because he had chemical and biological weapons he was prepared to hand over to terrorists at any moment. The administration detailed those weapons with excruciating precision: 5,000 gallons of anthrax, several tons of VX nerve gas, between 100 and 500 tons of other toxins including botulinum toxin, mustard gas, ricin and sarin, 15 to 20 Scud missiles, drones fitted with poison sprays and mobile chemical laboratories. The reason Bush could not make the human-rights case against Hussein (as British Prime Minister Tony Blair did) is because we're still supplying other monsters with weaponry. (Algeria, anyone?) John Quincy Adams once said, "We go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." We shouldn't help create them, either. Maybe we can learn that much from Saddam Hussein.

quote: Posted on Thu, May. 01, 2003 Where, oh where, are the WMDs? By Molly Ivins Creators Syndicate The sour joke is: "Of course we know the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction. We have the receipts." At this point, the administration would probably be delighted if it could find the WMDs that the Reagan administration gave Saddam Hussein. At least it could point to some WMDs. This is a "what if …" column, since I have no idea whether Saddam was or was not sitting on great caches of chemical and biological weapons. What is clear is that not finding the WMDs is getting to be a problem -- and if we don't find any, it's going to be a bigger problem. And if we do find some, we'd better make plenty sure that they come with a chain-of-evidence pedigree, or no one is going to believe us. You don't have to be an expert on WMDs in the Middle East to know that when the administration starts spreading the word that "it wouldn't really make any difference if there were WMDs or not," it's worried about not finding any. In the weeks before Persian Gulf War II, the United States told the world that Saddam was hiding mobile chemical laboratories, drones fitted with poison sprays, 15 to 20 Scud missile launchers, 5,000 gallons of anthrax, several tons of VX nerve gas agent and between 100 and 500 tons of other toxins, including botulinun, mustard gas, ricin and Sarin. Also, we said he had over 30,000 illegal munitions. So far, we have found bupkes. The United States, which insisted it could not give U.N. weapons inspectors so much as 10 days more to search, so dangerous were these WMDs, now says it needs months to find them. In the meantime, we are clearly being set up to put the whole issue of WMDs down the memory hole. Here are the lines of argument advanced by the administration so far: • Saddam did have WMDs, but in a wily plot, he poured them down a drain right before we invaded, just so he could embarrass George W. Bush. • The WMDs are still there, but in some remote desert hiding place that we may never be able to find. "Just because we haven't found anything doesn't mean it wasn't there," one Pentagon source told the Los Angeles Times. Right. • Saddam had WMDs, but he handed them off to the Syrians just before we came in. Or maybe it was to the Iranians. • Well, maybe Saddam didn't have huge stores of WMDs, but he had critical blueprints, weapons parts and, most ominously, "precursor chemicals," so he could have manufactured WMDs. • Well, maybe he didn't have WMDs ready to deliver. The Pentagon has already backtracked on the Scud missile claim. So far, U.S. "mobile exploitation teams" and other special forces have visited 90 of the top 150 "hot" sites identified by U.S. intelligence. No wonder Hans Blix, head of the U.N. inspection team, says what he got from American intelligence was "garbage." I'm sorry, but this does make a difference. The problem is called credibility. Tom Friedman of The New York Times, in a rush to be the first on his block to adopt the "it makes no difference" line, announced the other day that it made no difference because Saddam was such a miserable slimeball on human rights. As one who long argued that there was a good case to be made for taking out Saddam on human rights grounds back when we were still sending him WMDs, think how pleased I am. Unfortunately, that was not the case that Bush made. Of the various shifting rationales advanced for this war, human rights was way, way down there, and WMDs were way, way up there. If there are no WMDs, I would seriously advise this administration not to try to spin its way out of the problem. Bad idea. Will not fly. There's plenty of evidence that we believed in the WMDs -- took along chemical suits, antidotes, etc. So if there are no WMDs, it's time for a blame-game witch hunt. I really hate those things, but someone needs to go around roaring, "Whose fault was this?! " It's a splendid opportunity to fire half the CIA. Let it be a lesson to all intelligence analysts not to let political pressure sway them on evidence. As a minor plot point: It would be interesting to see if George Tenant, a skillful warrior in intra-bureaucracy turf wars, could survive this one. Maybe the American people can be brainwashed into forgetting why we supposedly went to war. Near as I can tell, our national memory span is down to about two weeks, and the media have been spectacularly unskeptical on this issue. But the rest of the world is not going to forget that WMDs were our primary reason for an unprovoked, pre-emptive war. http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram...ins/5759590.htm

The entire premise of this debate is "IF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AREN'T FOUND". So please refrain from posting "weapons will be found" and other party line rhetoric, mkay?

The other thing I will mention is that this is not an opprotunity to point out other reasons for going to war; i.e liberation, Saddam is a bad man, etc. Bush's and Powell's case for the war was based upon the notion that Saddam had WMD and was going to give them to terrorists.

This discussion is about whether or not Bush will be considered a liar, or whether or not the intelligence community is inept for telling Dubya that Saddam had WMD's; in the event WMD's are not found.

IMO, if WMD's are not found. I'll put Bush in the same category as LBJ and Nixon... "Lying to the American people".

Discuss and please follow what the discussion is about.

	09-05-2003 21:25									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

The new rhetoric is that WMD were a pretext and "everybody knew that and was OK with that but said some stuff about WMDs to placate the bedwetters".

The war was REALLY about smashing an evil dictator and sending a message. And Iraq is different from all the other developing weapons dictatorships bec---U! S! A! U! S! A!....(drowned out)

	09-05-2003 21:25									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Can we make up more funny excuses why they won't be found?

	09-05-2003 21:26									#4
	Remove this text

No. It could mean the weapons have been moved. It could mean the weapons have been destroyed as the US soldiers advanced, in one last ditch effort by Saddam to get at the Bush family.

The thing is, in making the decision to go to war or not, we were working with imperfect information. We had information suggesting it was likely Saddam had WMDs. Saddam was certainly acting like he had WMDs, since he was contuing to obstruct the weapons inspections, so it certainly seemed like he had something to hide. We didn't want to take the remote the chance that Saddam was telling the truth when he was acting as though he was lying.

Furthermore, the Causus Belli was not just that we believed he had WMDs, but more importantly he wasn't cooperating with efforts to make sure he didn't have them.

	09-05-2003 21:28									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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

	09-05-2003 21:28									#6
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

No one in America cares the President lied. Either they already knew he was lying; they love him so much he could tell them anything; or they're go with the flow sheep.

	09-05-2003 21:31									#7
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi we were working with imperfect information. We had information suggesting it was likely Saddam had WMDs.

Likely wasnt the word used by Colin Powell. Maybe he was speaking in another language but he sure did say something along the line of "we're 100% sure but we cant reveal the info".

Bush wont be a liar. He can make up lies to cover up his lies.

	09-05-2003 21:31									#8
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Che: Baaaaaaaaaaa


We could find an arsenal of nuclear warheads unlike this world has ever seen, and the democrats will still say, "That's no smoking gun. Where are the weapons YOU promised?"

	09-05-2003 21:33									#9
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

good post Japher!

	09-05-2003 21:34									#10
	Suffering from ads?

"The thing is, in making the decision to go to war or not, we were working with imperfect information."

I imagine VERY imperfect information...three levels of distortion...

1. Defectors telling their handlers exactly what they want to hear (yeah, I was the top athrax guy...yeah....)

2. The handlers telling their bosses what they want to hear, because they want to be heard and considered experts (and keep jobs in an era of downsizing and streamlining).

3. The bosses telling the fundies what they want to hear, and the fundies FURTHER filtering that by selectively listening 'i.e. this guy is talking about a massive program, he must be right because God tells me so, this other guy is saying this defector is full of ****, he must be a COMMUNIST'

	09-05-2003 21:35									#11
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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

	09-05-2003 21:37									#12
	Support Apolyton

I find it funny that we had evidence out the ying yang that iraq had WMD before the war, and now we dont have anything.

	09-05-2003 21:38									#13
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Stefu I'm waiting for Bush to roll out the trusty "This all depends on the definition of WMD" defense.

nice Stefu... nice...

	09-05-2003 21:39									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Stefu I'm waiting for Bush to roll out the trusty "This all depends on the definition of WMD" defense.

i knew it... saddam's fart must have been classified as biochemical weapon.

	09-05-2003 21:40									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

If Ming tells me you have a brain, does that make me a liar?

	09-05-2003 21:41									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

So your answer is "Intelligence ineptitude"?

	09-05-2003 21:42									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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"?

---

	09-05-2003 21:52									#18
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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...

	09-05-2003 21:58									#19
	Put an end to popups!

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.

	09-05-2003 22:00									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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.

	09-05-2003 22:03									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

	09-05-2003 22:04									#22
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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?

	09-05-2003 22:07									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

[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

	09-05-2003 22:09									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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]

	09-05-2003 22:11									#25
	Tired of ads?

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.

	09-05-2003 22:13									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	09-05-2003 22:14									#27
	Got spare money?

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

	09-05-2003 22:20									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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!

	09-05-2003 22:24									#29
	Inflate your Upload Space

"
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.

	09-05-2003 22:24									#30
	Put an end to popups!

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.