Still think Saddam had WMD's?

The US government now says otherwise!

Published on October 6, 2004 By thatoneguyinslc In Politics

I was reading my complimentary copy of USA Today at the hotel this morning and found this little nugget of info. Now bush 2.0's own people are contradicting him.

Link

thanks for reading,
Thatoneguyinslc

Comments (Page 1)

Draginol

on Oct 06, 2004

Actually most of us who supported the war did not think Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD. We simply considered Saddam's regime to be an unacceptable threat in a post-war Iraq. I've been blogging since before the war and had written my view that it wasn't canisters of mustard gas or whatever that we were going into Iraq about.

It's been those who opposed the war - even when they thought there were WMD stockpiles - who made the switch to acting like they somehow would have been for the war if they'd merely found some barrels of mustard gas or something.

That's the one nicest thing about blogging - it creates a written record.

Deference

on Oct 06, 2004

Actually most of us who supported the war did not think Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD. We simply considered Saddam's regime to be an unacceptable threat in a post-war Iraq.

Perhaps you didn't feel that way, but it's pretty hard to argue that anyone who supported the war did so because they felt there was no imminent threat from WMD's. Why would Saddam's regime be more a threat than Iran or N. Korea if it didn't have WMD's? Because Wolfowitz and PANAC felt so?

Draginol

on Oct 06, 2004

Again: The nice thing about the blogsphere is that it keeps a written record.

The leading "warbloggers" of the time, ranging from Steven Den Beste, Right Wing News, Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, James Lileks, One Hand Clapping, Eject Eject Eject, JoeUser (back when it was just me) and so forth were saying the same things.

Show me anti-war people who would have thought taking out Saddam would have been a good thing if only we had found a warehouse of mustard gas. You can't because they were against it no matter what. So out of their own cynical nastiness they merely spin the absence of WMD stockpiles as being the main reason we went in which was never the case.

Tell me Deference: Are you glad we invaded Iraq? Would you been cheering on Bush today if we had found a warehouse in Baghdad with drums of mustard gas in there?

thatoneguyinslc

on Oct 06, 2004

Never said it was the primary reason Drag...But the current administration did use it as a secondary reason for invasion. Let's keep the record straight here guys!

Also for the record, this should have been finished in 1990, when the WMD was a real threat.

blogic

on Oct 06, 2004

Whatever warbloggers may have been writing about, Bush absolutely focused on WMDs and the eminent threat to America in his comments and speeches. Warbloggers aren't accountable to the citizens of this country, Bush is. Warbloggers don't run the country, Bush does. It is certainly accurate to say that Americans supported the war because Bush told us we were facing an eminent threat from Iraqi WMDs. That's why people keep reading articles about it, and posted articles get bumped up at sites that track web views, and it's also why the Bush people haven't apologized for hiding the CIAs caveats at the time, and why they are still nearly unwilling to acknowledge that there were no WMDs. Everyone's behavior is consistent with the thesis that both the American people and Bush think WMDs matter.

Solitair

on Oct 06, 2004

The whole 'why' debate has raged for months.

There have been hundreds of posts on JoeUser by pro war supporters about the definite proof of WMD.

I think it is very fair to say that most of those who bothered to read up on the issue supported the war for non WMD issues. The majority however had to decide to support the war based on what their government was telling them. Whether the government tried to sell the war on WMD issues and links to 9/11 is important here. I for one definitely believe they did.

Paul.

Deference

on Oct 06, 2004

Anyone who thinks that we invaded Iraq primarily because we thought it contained drums of mustard gas or something is ignorant of the facts and deserves nothing but scorn and contempt for their naivete.

Regardless, this was the selling point given by the current administration, I doubt much public support would have been given by the people for the war if it were not. Try getting the public behind you to invade North Korea or Iran without getting them to believe they are in immediate danger from those countries, despite their threat.

Tell me Deference: Are you glad we invaded Iraq? Would you been cheering on Bush today if we had found a warehouse in Baghdad with drums of mustard gas in there?

Nope, not glad we invaded Iraq, with the amount of cost to us, in lives and taxpayer dollars, I'm certain there were other options that were ignored that may have been less expensive and dangerous for us. Do you feel this was the best way to solve problems in Iraq? Knowing your judgement here in the forums, I would infer that you don't. If we found a warehouse of mustard gas, I would say that it would at least justify us to a greater extent for our preemptive action in the eyes of the world, but even then, I feel this administration rushed us from one war to the next while playing a shell game with the reasons why.

JE0192

on Oct 06, 2004

Oh yes, those middle-aged men with a tight grip on the blog fad are surely an accurate representation of the American population eh.

The truth is, that without the WMD argument, the Bush administration would NEVER have had such a high support for war from the general public or support from other countries.

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2004

Reply #7 By: Deference - 10/6/2004 12:00:22 PM
Anyone who thinks that we invaded Iraq primarily because we thought it contained drums of mustard gas or something is ignorant of the facts and deserves nothing but scorn and contempt for their naivete.

Regardless, this was the selling point given by the current administration, I doubt much public support would have been given by the people for the war if it were not. Try getting the public behind you to invade North Korea or Iran without getting them to believe they are in immediate danger from those countries, despite their threat

WMD's were their main selling point because *at the time* it what the intel weenies were feeding them. Don't try to lay all this on Bush! Put some of it where it belongs.....on the CIA!!!

citahellion

on Oct 06, 2004

As I recall it, the WMD argument went something like this:

He has had them in the past. Sizeable stockpiles of them.
He has USED them in the past.
He has had the capability to build them himself.
He has consistently refused to show the UN inspectors proof that he no longer has the capacity to build them.
He has consistently refused to show the UN inspectors proof that he has destroyed all of his stockpiles.
His actions demonstrate that even if he no longer has the capacity to build them or the stockpiles, he will re-acquire that ability and re-stockpile them.
We know from his history that he is willing to use them when he has them.

Therefore:
We cannot afford to wait until he proves that he has them by using them (on us, quite probably) before we act against him.

Deference

on Oct 06, 2004

...let's see, George Tenet, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Cheney, etc. etc., we had a lot of people assisting Mr. Bush in selling this war, I will not believe he was some uninformed innocent simply because he made the wrong call and has to suffer the consequences of his foolish preemptive action.

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2004

Reply #11 By: Deference - 10/6/2004 12:25:06 PM
...let's see, George Tenet, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Cheney, etc. etc., we had a lot of people assisting Mr. Bush in selling this war, I will not believe he was some uninformed innocent simply because he made the wrong call and has to suffer the consequences of his foolish preemptive action.

You just don't get it do you? ALL those people you are refering to, read the SAME damn intel reports! I never said he was an uninformed innocent. I'm saying that he was *misinformed* by his intel dept.

Deference

on Oct 06, 2004

The point I'm making is that, just like Bush at the debates, the homework wasn't done, and the results were disastrous. You are going to tell me that the United States Government doesn't evaluate these reports for their plausibility? When so much intelligence is taken to justify war that falls through, there is a serious problem, either the collective workings of the administration (and that includes G.W.) are broken and incompetent or such information, though they knew it was the equal of walking out on a limb, was jumped at as a justification for more military action. Let's not look at the pattern of fearmongering we've seen from this administration as some wizened ancients looking out for our better interests, instead, let's see them for the chickenhawks they are.

thatoneguyinslc

on Oct 06, 2004

Dr....Come on!

There were other intel reports out there at the time that stated saddam didnt have WMD's. bush 2.0 chose to ignore them. The current administration planned to invade Iraq very early in their term. The WMD's and 9/11 were their justification to do it.

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2004

Reply #13 By: Deference - 10/6/2004 12:51:48 PM
The point I'm making is that, just like Bush at the debates, the homework wasn't done, and the results were disastrous.

You still don't get it! The homework assignment that you are refering to was supposed to be done by the CIA no Bush!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!