One of the things that gives the Administration great credibility is that no WMD were found.
Certainly the U.S. could have created such evidence if we had wanted to. Between the Israelis, Brits, and U.S. we could have come up with "evidence" of WMD. I'm sure the idea was floated (I'd be damn disappointed in our intelligence service if it wasn't) and it is to Bush's credit that those plans remained unaddressed.
I'd be a lot more concerned if there had been questionable evidence coming out of Iraq last year.
"On the eve of war in March 2003, there was almost no one in the credible, civilized world that did not think that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed biological, chemical, and possibly even nuclear weapons."
Well other than the CIA, DIA, IAEA and those countries that we weren't able to bribe into supporting us, that may be true...
Moreover, and I'm not necessarily saying the administration "misled" per se, but what is clear is that they were privy to information which heavily weighed against going to war over WMD that others were not. Having had all of the information the administration had in front of it--not just what it cherry-picked for public and quasi-publc consumption-at the very least many of the spineless Dems wouldn't have opted for political expediency in supporting the President.
While the distinctions may be subtle, so are those between iminent and potential, between necessity and choice.
"One of the things that gives the Administration great credibility is that no WMD were found."
DS-are you anticipating applying for Rove's job in the event there is an opening?
Well other than the CIA, DIA, IAEA and those countries that we weren't able to bribe into supporting us, that may be true...
You really believe that, don't you? Quelle triste.
In fact, these entitities did report that Iraq possessed WMD. These other countries (and how funny you should talk about bribes, because if enyone was bribed, it was France, Russia, etc. by IRAQ) did not disbelieve that Iraq possessed these weapons, but merely that their possession of such did not justify military intervention. That's a subjective interpretation that does not signify that they did not think there were WMD.
Touche, I find it equally disturbing that you believe the opposite. I'm sure at root of our disagreement lies discrepancies over that actual meanings of "report" and "possess" are. On the eve of the invasion, that dispite its continued and disingenuous use of mushroom cloud rhetoric, the administration did not have in front of it information that collectively supported an immediate invasion on the bases for which it was advocating such action. If nothing else, it was abundantly clear that even to the extent that the alphabet soup of intelligence had previously opined on Iraq's WMD, that there now (2003) serious doubts as the veracity of the administration's claims. Not that that would've been a reason for pause or anything... Waiting a day, a year, two years, if going at all, would not have resulted in a situation any less daunting than that which we are faced with today.
Were there FR, RUS and GER business interests that would have been disturbed by invasion, sure. Were there hopes, promises, errr...uh contracts that the result of the war would be American business, most definitely. But did the US literally buy and/or strongarm it's support to form the "coalition of the willing", without question.
There were lots of reasons to go to war. Granted that the WMD was the primary assertion by the Administration. It was not, however, the only or even the most significant reason cited.
I think that the biggest reason for going to war was b/c Iraqi isolation could not be sustained. In the face of massive UN and EU violations of the embargo, there were only two options remaining to the U.S.: 1) go to war and 2) abandon UN action against Sadaam. My personal belief is that the second option would eventually have led to war anyway.
Since WMD was the primary concern of the international community, I think that the Administration can be cut some slack in playing up this aspect; especially since, on the eve of conflict, Iraq was actively moving assets around that looked like WMD positioning.
Every advocate puts what they perceive to be their strongest card in front when publicly negotiating. I don't see anything inherently dishonest in using one's strongest argument to advocate for a specific course of action. It is only dishonest if one knows that the course of action is misguided or that the underlying arguments are false. Nothing seems to indicate that the Bush Administration knew either of these deficiencies when the decision to go to war was made.
Oh, by the by... How much does Rove's position pay? Do you really think the Administration would hire a Dem to fill the post?
My, Bush HAS become broad-minded in his second term.
Good points all, DS, and I would add that either Wolfowitz or one of his subordinates essentially stated that the reason they touted the WMD argument as much as they did was because it was the only rationale for war that everyone agreed upon. In other words, there were several legitimate reasons for going to war - which you have alluded to here and in a long comments thread months ago - but WMD was the only one that all members of the admin could get behind. I think this is unfortunate, and I felt even at the time that they were pushing this argument too far. I had favored an invasion long before I heard the term "WMD," and I think that the public would have supported it either way.
That said, I don't think the reason the war has become less popular is because of the failure to find WMD. Even if they had been found - or if any of the other rationale had been stressed before we invaded - I think the perceived lack of progress is what frustrates people. Of course we can have an entirely different argument about whether we or making progress or not, and I'm too tired to have that discussion right now, but I do think that's more of a concern here.
Ultimately the discusssion we are having is somewhat academic. If we're looking at public perception and public support for the war, whether or not the intelligence was "sexed up," or whether or not we should have invaded based on the intelligence, are moot questions. That's not to say they're not important, it's just that I don't believe these are issues that the public is truly concerned about right now.
Wholeheartedly agree on what the focus of discussion should be about now. However, without WMD, the Iraqi venture would never have been more than Wolfowitz's wet dream--regardless of any of the cited reasons for going in. WMD may have been the "only one everybody agreed on", but it was also the only one that was capable of getting Congress and the public to support going to war.
but it was also the only one that was capable of getting Congress and the public to support going to war.
I've heard this argued many, many times, but I must respectfully disagree. I believe, as DS said, that this had more to do with convincing the international community than with domestic concerns. Alas, we will never know.
I'm not going to keep re-fighting the war over the war, and besides, DS and Paul have done a decent job of reminding everyone about the pre-war circumstances.
I would, however, like to drag Deuce and his compatriots kicking and screaming back to the specific subject of this post: namely, that Iraqi scientists are being murdered, possibly by the hundreds, and no one can explain why or by whom. My theory is that Baathist elements -- perhaps leftover from the Iraqi government, perhaps from Syria, where at least some of the missing WMD are probably being stored as we speak -- are systematically targeting these scientists because of what they know and could reveal to the world. The reason I think it is the Baathists and not just the insurgents is that I doubt the insurgents would have precise information about who's who and where they might be found. That information would be (or would have been) readily available to Baath Party members.
Oh, I'm sure that they'll be a story about him sodomizing squirrels and having a Che Guevarra tattoo on his ass before the week is out, but the line that the administration had it right and everyone else must be off their rocker is getting increasingly thin:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...q.ap/
index.html
Nice avoidance there. Tha,t my friends, is talent.
Right... Of course... I completely sidestepped GC's unsupported "conclusion." These scientists must know where all the WMD are buried. Everything the administration said was true and any naysayers should be executed for treason. X marks the spot! Cheney could cut open his hand and sign a confession in blood saying that he made up the whole thing (not that I'm saying that) and GC would still be arguing about how Sadamn had nukes...
Right... Of course... I completely sidestepped GC's unsupported "conclusion." These scientists must know where all the WMD are buried.
Deuce, Deuce, Deuce . . . If you'll go re-read what I wrote above, I specifically used the word "theory" to describe what I thought was going on regarding the disappearing scientists.
Serious question: Can you posit a theory (other than a black ops hit team personally led by Dick Cheney) that accounts for the disappearance of the scientists? Put more bluntly, can you posit a theory that is more plausible than mine?
I'm waiting . . .
First of all, your "theory" isn't quite exactly the thesis of the articles cited, but at least insofar as one of the articles is concerned appears to be a tangential point.
I'm still waiting, Deuce . . .
So who would have an interest in killing these scientists exactly? Your "theory" to the extent is one doesn't actually conclude anything except to take a couple more swings at the dead WMD horse. They could have been captured, killed by Saddam (since they would disprove WMD), in hiding (as some clearly would have been arrested by the US).
[The missing Iraqi scientists] could have been captured, killed by Saddam (since they would disprove WMD), in hiding (as some clearly would have been arrested by the US).
Deuce, why on earth would Saddam kill his own scientists if they would say that he did not possess WMD? That is so far off the beaten path that I don't even know how to counter it.
As for some of the scientists being in hiding, I suppose it is possible, but the stories included in the post address dead and murdered Iraqi scientists. They are clearly not in hiding. If anything, some scientists may be in hiding in order to avoid the fate of their now-deceased counterparts.
Commenting by HaloScan
