Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


US gives up search for Iraq WMD
January 12, 2005 10:57 AM   Subscribe

It's official: US gives up search for Iraq WMD.
posted by airguitar (231 comments total)

 
about time.
posted by poipill at 11:00 AM on January 12, 2005


mission accomplished
posted by mr.marx at 11:01 AM on January 12, 2005


Now they can really concentrate on that bin Laden fella who keeps making those videos.
posted by fenriq at 11:01 AM on January 12, 2005


We were looking for WMD? In Iraq? Why?
posted by eyeballkid at 11:03 AM on January 12, 2005


So why is Bush still in office?
posted by Dean Keaton at 11:05 AM on January 12, 2005


LOL.
posted by orange clock at 11:07 AM on January 12, 2005


The word for the day is WFD. We are now officially looking for Weapons of Financial Destruction in Social Security. Come on people, get with the program!
posted by meehawl at 11:08 AM on January 12, 2005


You missed the memo. It was all about capturing Saddam! Now that he's in custody, Iraqis don't have to fear sham elections, or being imprisoned indefinitely for imagined crimes or face death squads hired to assassinate them. Plus, with Saddam out of the way, there's nowhere near as strong an al-Qaeda presence in the area as there was when he was in power.

Yep.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:10 AM on January 12, 2005


I'm ashamed to live in a country where the Intelligence Agencies don't have enough acumen to hide and then "discover" toxic agents. Why, it's as bad as having a president that can't even have his interns/girlfriends "erased."

What a sad state of affairs.
posted by ColdChef at 11:10 AM on January 12, 2005


You missed the memo. It was all about capturing Saddam!

I thought it was all about Bush's policy of spreading freedom to oil rich nations that appear shifty?
posted by aburd at 11:12 AM on January 12, 2005


When will you traitorous lefties understand, we already found an explosive shell with traces of sarin gas in it. If that wasn't bad enough, Saddam Hussein himself was a Weapon of Mass Destruction!

Sorry - I'm just regurgitating things I've heard over the last few months on Fox News.

Remember, it was never about WMDs. Our mission in Iraq is a humanitarian mission to help the Iraqi people.
posted by rks404 at 11:12 AM on January 12, 2005


Can anyone defend Bush here?
posted by xmutex at 11:12 AM on January 12, 2005


Steve Gilliard has the best opinion on this story, with his open letter to Ken Pollack.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:12 AM on January 12, 2005


Eat dirt 101st Fighting Keyboarders!

Shall I provide extensive quotes about this issue justifying the invasion? (some troutfishing love?)

Oh, I almost forgot we've gone through that stupid excuse and three more. What is it now? Oh, yes, the Oil For Food Program! That's a good one, un-huh.

Time for a reality check boys.

Let's hear it now, "I was wrong." "Bush lied." "I'm a fool to believe such fairy tales."

You can do it.
It will only hurt for a little while.
Speak up and attempt to restore some small part of your dignity today.
posted by nofundy at 11:15 AM on January 12, 2005


Look, alls I'm saying is...if they can kill Kennedy and supress the aliens, they could have "discovered" a suitcase of plutonium, couldn't they?
posted by ColdChef at 11:16 AM on January 12, 2005


"We got 'em"
posted by zorro astor at 11:16 AM on January 12, 2005


Fear the humanitarians. Now we need to dismantle Social Security as soon as possible to avoid the killing to come in the US.
posted by 31d1 at 11:20 AM on January 12, 2005


This administration is going to hell.
posted by Specklet at 11:20 AM on January 12, 2005


"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories ... and we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, we found them."
posted by specialk420 at 11:20 AM on January 12, 2005


ColdChef - now you got me to thinking. You seriously got a point there.
posted by 31d1 at 11:21 AM on January 12, 2005


ColdChef: don't forget "walking on the moon"!
posted by Robot Johnny at 11:27 AM on January 12, 2005


He should resume the WMD search in ten years. The new terrorist regime he's brewing with failure after failure will surely have built up an aresenal by then.
posted by fleener at 11:30 AM on January 12, 2005


If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.

ParisParamus, April 29th 2003, at 8:57pm PST


I think he's got more than just a little egg on his face.
posted by Freen at 11:31 AM on January 12, 2005


GREAT POST A+++++++++++++!!!1 WOULD READ AGIN.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:33 AM on January 12, 2005


"Can anyone defend Bush here?"

Nope. Sad but true.
posted by trii at 11:34 AM on January 12, 2005


Everyone who helped re-elect this lying bastard can get their ticket for the short-bus to hell on the right.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:34 AM on January 12, 2005


What was so funny about my question? It was totally serious.
posted by Dean Keaton at 11:35 AM on January 12, 2005


ColdChef - you read my mind. Hell, you've BEEN reading my mind, apparently. I've been wondering since this flap began when the administration - or even just a rogue figure within the administration - would think to find something special and funny.

Although, I suppose, if one were to be caught doing such a thing, all hell would break loose. Are Bush and his supporters banking on an assumption that the WMDs have been snuck over to Syria, or what? Also, while I feel this administration has been inordinately credulous in their beliefs and deceptive in their tactics, it does seem out of character somehow for anyone to seriously think of planting some plutonium. It's just not the sort of dishonesty they're into, even if it were wise to commit it.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:35 AM on January 12, 2005


Can anyone defend Bush here?

It's not like he was the only one.

Yes, yes, I know, many of the quotes were taken out of context, and some of the people to whom they are attributed never favored the occupation...
posted by trharlan at 11:37 AM on January 12, 2005


Yes, but trharlan, where does the buck stop and the responsibility lie?
posted by Freen at 11:40 AM on January 12, 2005


Freen, very nice find on the PP comment. Paris? Care to comment now on what you said before?

Oh wait, now Bush can concentrate on the really important stuff, like amending the Constitution so that Arnold can run for president and so that gay people can never, ever, ever get married since that santified institution is reserved for straighties who treat it with such respect that Britney could get married for 54 hours or something retarded.

Phew, those gaping holes in our Constitution can get the attention they deserve. How dare our founding fathers not plan ahead for Austrian dumbasses to run for president and to keep gay people from legally getting married.
posted by fenriq at 11:40 AM on January 12, 2005


Also trharlan, check out Powell and Rice claiming that the UN Sanctions were working and that there were no WMD in Iraq.
posted by Freen at 11:43 AM on January 12, 2005


XQUZYPHYR -- Gilliard's screed is about a year late. Ken Pollack wrote a pretty thorough mea culpa in the February 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly (subscription only, as usual, but The Christian Science Monitor has a decent precis)
posted by bl1nk at 11:46 AM on January 12, 2005


Guys, guys, you don't understand: It wasn't about WMDs, it was about abuse of the oil-for-food program!

Heh. Head over to Free Republic for some internet goodness: 50 posts saying "It was NEVER about WMDs! How could anyone get that idea? They're not important at all!" and another 50 with "AN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM HAS PLACED IRAQ'S WMDS IN (country x)!!! MAINSTREAM MEDIA IGNORES!" I love it.

Sorry, I have a recent Free Republic fixation. Probably a bad idea.

Special: Good call. I tried telling people about that before the election. Also, I loved Dick Cheney's great speech about how we had total proof of Iraq/Qaeda connections, later reversed at his debate. "I've never said that there was any connection."

I still know people who call John Kerry a liar because his story and the stories of his crewmates don't match the story someone from another boat, hundreds of feet away, told for the first time two years ago. But when I show them entirely conflicting quotes from P and VP, it's all "Well....you know.....the context, and all.....I mean, the CIA gave bad intel....."

We have entered an age where there is an easy, guilt-free way to believe whatever you want, whenever you want, regardless of what you hear with your own ears.
I, for one, welcome our oblivious etc etc etc.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 11:47 AM on January 12, 2005


Yes, but trharlan, where does the buck stop and the responsibility lie?

How, exactly, does one stop the buck and take responsibility? Should W go on TV and say "Oops, I fucked up! Sorry!" What would that accomplish?

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not a fan of the president, but, seriously, what do you want him to do?
posted by trharlan at 11:51 AM on January 12, 2005


trharlan: Precisely.

And preferably, as soon as it was known that there were no WMD.
posted by Freen at 11:52 AM on January 12, 2005


That's what responsible honest people do.
Admit failure, learn from your mistakes, fire those responsible, ensure that it never happens again.

Rice and Rumsfeld still have jobs. Why?
posted by Freen at 11:58 AM on January 12, 2005


Don't you get it? Being wrong doesn't matter anymore. I'm not sure when the switch flipped, but above a certain level, the idea of being held accountable just doesn't apply.

Download free music, cheat on your taxes, try to marry someone of the same sex, sure, they'll come after you. But once you get above the new glass floor, you just can't fall back through.

Unless, of course, you're a successful, threatening female. Or filthy rich and unappealing. Or a certain kind of celebrity.
posted by gottabefunky at 11:58 AM on January 12, 2005


I'm not a fan of the president, but, seriously, what do you want him to do?

I want him admit his mistakes, fire the people responsible, and support the troops by bringing them home right now and end this stupid, unnecessary, and expensive war. I'd also like him to resign and disappear from public life forever, but that puts Dick Cheney in charge.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:00 PM on January 12, 2005


It's all a continuation of Carl Rove's master Neo-Con plan...
(I know... I've said it at least three times before...)

"Say the RIGHT thing, then DO whateverthehellyouwant(tm).
You will not be held responsible."

It has been working for 4+ (really 25+) years, and shows no sign of weakness...

Hell is too good for these fucks!
posted by Balisong at 12:04 PM on January 12, 2005


I agree with ParisParamus. The President should be indicted.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:06 PM on January 12, 2005


Cheney's not in charge now?
posted by ColdChef at 12:07 PM on January 12, 2005


somehow, this must all be Bill Clinton's fault.
posted by psmealey at 12:08 PM on January 12, 2005


well it seems that someone owes french president chriac a big apology, but i guess those "cheese eating surrender monkeys" will just have to enjoy the satisfaction of knowing they were right.
posted by three blind mice at 12:08 PM on January 12, 2005


(Ah... Feel the camaraderie!! Can this post be put on a sticky thread, to keep it at the top of the blue... for about a year?)
posted by Balisong at 12:12 PM on January 12, 2005


If you have friends or relatives in Syria, now would be a good time to start encouraging them to move.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:13 PM on January 12, 2005


Reminds me of Lewis Black's standup:
"How could they have been SOOO wrong about them? Why has there been no accountability? Why wasn't anyone immediately fired? What'd happen to you if you screwed up that badly at work? Why did my government stop lying to me?!...Why not just make some WMDs up?"

Yup


It's not about being right, it's about being right now.

I'd hate them for their arrogance if the damn thing didn't work on the masses. (Proles?)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:13 PM on January 12, 2005


three blind mice, I've been "enjoying" the satisfaction of being right since this debacle began. It doesn't make me feel any better at all.

But it might get me to write a letter to my representatives and ask for them to indict Bush and his team for fraud.
posted by fenriq at 12:13 PM on January 12, 2005


I'm not a fan of the president, but, seriously, what do you want him to do?

i want him to admit that he's a colossal fuckup, proclaim that he has never been anything but a colossal fuckup, and retire to his ranch to clear brush all day long.

i want the creeps and underlings in his administration to be sent to a detention facility where they're looked after by guards who are "just letting off steam" when they torture them -- whoops, i mean question them harshly -- to detemine what they knew about the lies this administration has told and when they knew it.

i want a 500-word essay from everyone who voted for him explaining why they did so and what they think of him and themselves now (no references to jesus allowed).

and that's just for starters.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:17 PM on January 12, 2005


"Remember, it was never about WMDs."

Yes it was. That was the reason for our invasion - Bush claimed to suspect Saddam of having WMD and decided that we should go in there and look for them.

"Our mission in Iraq is a humanitarian mission to help the Iraqi people."

No it's not. If you're being sarcastic, you got me. If you really beleive this, you are a fool.
posted by tomorama at 12:17 PM on January 12, 2005


How, exactly, does one stop the buck and take responsibility? Should W go on TV and say "Oops, I fucked up! Sorry!" What would that accomplish?

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not a fan of the president, but, seriously, what do you want him to do?


In complete seriousness, I expect him to resign, after apologising to the world, and the American people, specifically those whose loved ones are dead as a result of his error. Make no mistake, either: it most assuredly is his error. It doesn't matter what the source is. The troops aren't going to move unless the President gives the "ok" for it, and in this case, it was most definitely an "ok" that he gave that night before all hell broke loose.

It boils down to a simple question: If starting a war on false grounds isn't reason enough to say you're sorry; isn't reason enough for -someone- to lose their job, what is? Seriously, what is? I want to hear some options.

Instead, he's giving out fucking freedom medals to the masterminds of this disaster. This is hubris at its best (or most horrible, depending).
posted by odinsdream at 12:19 PM on January 12, 2005


No it's not. If you're being sarcastic, you got me. If you really beleive this, you are a fool.

As someone capable of perceiving the terribly obvious, yes, he was being sarcastic.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:21 PM on January 12, 2005


(Off Topic... On Drudge right now.. the big story is that Kid Rock has been axed from the inauguration gala. Now THIS is news!!)
posted by Balisong at 12:23 PM on January 12, 2005


At least they are not there.
posted by sled at 12:23 PM on January 12, 2005


tomorama - I was being sarcastic. I just didn't have the heart to put a smiley emoticon or a "haha" after my words.
posted by rks404 at 12:25 PM on January 12, 2005


I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not a fan of the president, but, seriously, what do you want him to do?

think norm coleman is the job (finding out who f*cked up - last i remember george tenet got a medal from the preznit) ?
posted by specialk420 at 12:30 PM on January 12, 2005


Freen, very nice find on the PP comment. Paris? Care to comment now on what you said before?

I have to say...I doubt he'll do anything other than defend himself.

After lurking on MeFi for years and having to suffer through ParisParamus' smug indignation throughout, this is certainly bittersweet schadenfraud.

Too bad about all the death and destruction it took to get here. Enjoy the hell-fire, chickenhawks.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 12:32 PM on January 12, 2005


I doubt he'll do anything other than defend himself.

That is, if he responds at all.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 12:33 PM on January 12, 2005


I agree with ParisParamus. The President should be indicted.

Me, too. Paris said it best. Indict the bastard.
posted by 327.ca at 12:33 PM on January 12, 2005


At least they are not there.
posted by sled at 12:23 PM PST on January 12


WMD's? I live 50 miled from Pueblo Arms Depot where they store TONS of mustard gas, anthrax, Sarin, and all the cool synthetic ones with capital letters-dash-some threatening number...

What I wonder is... Why the hell did WE ever produce TONS and TONS of this stuff...?

Did the US military/administration EVER think that it would be a GOOD IDEA to use these WMD's on ANYONE?

It freaks me out to no end...
posted by Balisong at 12:33 PM on January 12, 2005


Really - why is anything less than resigning sufficient in this case? Can anyone sum up the reasoning, here? This is a war he started. He started    a    war....
posted by odinsdream at 12:33 PM on January 12, 2005


I hope this story is not only posted on BBC News.
posted by xammerboy at 12:36 PM on January 12, 2005


XQUZYPHYR -- Gilliard's screed is about a year late. Ken Pollack wrote a pretty thorough mea culpa in the February 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly (subscription only, as usual, but The Christian Science Monitor has a decent precis)

The guy was catastrophically wrong and refuses to take responsibility. First he said he was the victim of bad intelligence. Then he said if the war had been executed the way he said it should have been, everything would have been fine and dandy. It is really way past time for him to shut the hell up.
posted by euphorb at 12:39 PM on January 12, 2005


He started a war....

OK, maybe we CAN'T remove ourselves from the situation immediately, and it IS POSSIBLE that the world is better off with Saddam disposed, (even replaced by a quagmire), but the fact reamins that this president took us to war over a complete lie (even IF you quibble about what a "lie" is.. "you had to KNOW the truth before you can produce a lie"..)

He should be taken down... Cheney too....
Kicking and screaming in shackes if need be.

But they must pay the toll.
posted by Balisong at 12:41 PM on January 12, 2005


I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not a fan of the president, but, seriously, what do you want him to do?

resign?
posted by matteo at 12:47 PM on January 12, 2005


"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush, 7/17/03

posted by matteo at 12:49 PM on January 12, 2005


Can anyone defend Bush here?

no they can't. here's why:

But, you know, there's something interesting that happens whenever you engage anyone who believes these things in a conversation: they get really, really defensive about Bush. And not in a coherent way. And not even in the knee-jerk-"I-support-my-President" kind of way. No, it's more of an "I don't wanna talk about it - shutupshutupshutup" kind of way, with ears covered and eyes clenched shut. In other words, they know. They know it's all been a huge failure. But they don't wanna know. And it's just easier to pretend that everything's fantabulous than face that horror, that abyss, of mistrust, of awareness of one's own complicity in the voting booth."
posted by matteo at 12:53 PM on January 12, 2005


"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels.
posted by fenriq at 12:55 PM on January 12, 2005


I used to hope that the US would find the WMDs because if we didn't, the world was going to really, really hate us. But, if we did, then the Bushies would then feel that they have the right to continue to rule the country and the world in the way that they did in the lead up to the war. Well, I was wrong on both counts, the world hates us whether we were going to find the WMDs or not and the Bushies are going to do whatever they want whether the Iraq situation was a success or not.
posted by Arch Stanton at 1:00 PM on January 12, 2005


>Can anyone defend Bush here?

Actually, I could try. Begin narrative...

I believe the President was right to enter that country and liberate the Iraqis and capture Saddam Hussein. I'm absolutely sure Saddam had something to do with 9/11, there were meetings and terrorist cells in Iraq. 9/11 changed everything.

Saddam has used WMD before, he was going to create more. In fact, the invasion and the subsequent lack of WMD prove it was a good idea to go into that country, uninhibited, to make sure there was no threat.

Some say the weapons have been spirited to Syria and Iran. Maybe we should go and find out.
posted by gsb at 1:07 PM on January 12, 2005


As always there are two (at least two) sets of laws. Those for the haves and those for the have-nots. Currently that is defined as political power and/or connections.


My big five reasons for why the system is broken:

The government has evoked a deep sense of mistrust in its citizens.

Political figures are held on a pedestal (my opinion is that politicians should be treated just as any other civil servant)

And democracy is not evenly applied.

Too much power at the top.

Too difficult to remove political figures.
posted by edgeways at 1:11 PM on January 12, 2005


>Can anyone defend Bush here?

Thanks Gsb, don't ever do that again...

You might start a trend...
posted by Balisong at 1:11 PM on January 12, 2005


"The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which was responsible for the search, continues its work but with the focus now on trying to help counter the Iraqi insurgency."

Did anyone else raise an eyebrow at this?
posted by Ritchie at 1:12 PM on January 12, 2005


Sigh... I was hoping to post something forward thinking about Iraq, but gsb will be drawn and quartered in... 4...3...2...
posted by mania at 1:12 PM on January 12, 2005


Searching for White House spin, I came accross this quote: "Our friends and allies had the same intelligence that we had when it came to Saddam Hussein," McClellan said. "And now we need to continue to move forward to find out what went wrong and to correct those flaws." - White House press secretary Scott McClellan

Ten to one this becomes the line the line americans justify themselves with. I really wish the fact that it is utter bullshit made a difference. There were only ever three groups convinced of WMDs: The Bush White House, the Blair Cabinet, and everyone who was scared shitless by the formers' talk of immenent mushroom clouds.

The two lessons I'm taking are this: That BushCo's skill at fear and deception are considerable. And the fact that VAST majority of UN nations didn't bite is reassuring, if ultimately ineffectual.
posted by Popular Ethics at 1:15 PM on January 12, 2005


Easy now, I'm almost certain gsb was playing Devil's advocate above. Right gsb? Right?
posted by odinsdream at 1:16 PM on January 12, 2005


So WHAT IS forward thinking about Iraq...

I haven't heard anything AT ALL predicted after the elections..

(Who's running? How do you register? Can American's vote ? Where and how do I cast my ballot... Do you know the answers to these questions? neither do the Iraqis...)

What comes NEXT...
What do WE wish Iraq to become...

It's awful hard to judge someting without having a model, mold, or guidelines to judge against...
posted by Balisong at 1:17 PM on January 12, 2005


The Wepoms of Mass Destruction line was just for Blue States to shut the fuck up.

All Bush has to say to Middle America is *Jesus* or *evildoer* and that's good enough cuz the President is W!!!!!!

As of Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2005, at least 1,356 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,068 died as a result of hostile action, the Defense Department said. The figures include three military civilians.

Four More Years!!!!!!
posted by orange clock at 1:20 PM on January 12, 2005


I want to see him dragged out of the oval office into the rose garden where he will be pelted with french ... err... freedom fries. It'll be a live event broadcast to all corners of the world ... (and that is just the start of this nutty canucks vision for retribution).
posted by squeak at 1:20 PM on January 12, 2005


I'm absolutely sure Saddam had something to do with 9/11

What evidence are you basing this assertion on? Your gut instinct?
posted by turaho at 1:25 PM on January 12, 2005


FYI, here is the transcript of President Bush's speech immediately predating congress' resolution to grant him authority to invade. If I had been a lawmaker, I might have been intimidated enough to vote yes as well. This is(was) criminal.
posted by Popular Ethics at 1:26 PM on January 12, 2005


Begin narrative...

I all seriousness, I believe Gsb was being facetious..
posted by Balisong at 1:27 PM on January 12, 2005


Popular Ethics, it is just coincidence that front and center on the whitehouse.gov page on you link has "Iraq : Denial and Deception" ?
posted by Balisong at 1:30 PM on January 12, 2005


Or else we got a whole lot of other countries we're going to have to invade if that is a reasonable excuse to start a war.
(provided any element of what GSB said is even remotely true, which it isn't. Iraq never actually produced WMD. All they had was stuff given to them by the US.)
posted by Freen at 1:32 PM on January 12, 2005


GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.

BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.

And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.

But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right


Link to the second presidential debate. The man has never, and will never admit to a mistake. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks or why anybody else says we went to war. All that matters to the President is that HE thinks he was right. If it acts like a tyrant and quacks like a tyrant then ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:32 PM on January 12, 2005


I believe the President was right to enter that country and liberate the Iraqis and capture Saddam Hussein. I'm absolutely sure Saddam had something to do with 9/11, there were meetings and terrorist cells in Iraq. 9/11 changed everything.

Saddam has used WMD before, he was going to create more. In fact, the invasion and the subsequent lack of WMD prove it was a good idea to go into that country, uninhibited, to make sure there was no threat.

Some say the weapons have been spirited to Syria and Iran. Maybe we should go and find out.


Paul Wolfowitz, is that you?
posted by fandango_matt at 1:33 PM on January 12, 2005


"It's hard work!" -GWB
posted by Balisong at 1:34 PM on January 12, 2005


it is just coincidence that front and center on the whitehouse.gov page on you link has "Iraq : Denial and Deception" ? I can't believe I missed that irony. I'd laugh if I wasn't disgusted.
Has anyone put together a timeline/compilation of these justifications?
posted by Popular Ethics at 1:34 PM on January 12, 2005


Yes yes yes. I was channeling the dark side.
posted by gsb at 1:36 PM on January 12, 2005


Back when I was pro-Bush, *shuffles feet* I thought, Man, I wish he focused on better reasons for this war, because if he keeps up the WMD thing and we don't find them, people are going to be MAD.

Imagine my surprise when that didn't happen at all.
And then, my crushing depression.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 1:42 PM on January 12, 2005


Balisong: Or how all the good news ended as of October 21st, 2004.....
posted by Freen at 1:43 PM on January 12, 2005


Balisong, I too would like to see possible scenarios for Iraq. Anyone else? We’re probably as good at it as anyone in the White House or at the AEI.

I’ll give it a quick shot:

1. More violence. (that’s an easy one)
2. Elections.
3. Installation of a weak, disputed government.
4. US withdraws large number of troops, claiming the Iraqi people now control their own fate.
5. Civil war with the US backing certain factions.
6. De facto partitioning occurs.
7. US keeps a smaller force on the ground to support elected government in civil war for a time.
8. US military supports Kurds in the north and some Shia factions in the east and south.
9. Elected government calls for new boundaries.
10. Official partitioning with US supporting those controlling the resources and ports.
posted by mania at 1:45 PM on January 12, 2005


11. Even more violence.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:47 PM on January 12, 2005


12. Profit!
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:48 PM on January 12, 2005


13. US keeps military in Iraq for 50+ years, great army base territory
posted by dabitch at 1:53 PM on January 12, 2005


50 years? Have to disagree with you there: the oil isn't going to last that long.
posted by Loudmax at 1:56 PM on January 12, 2005


Off topic, but:
I always find myself mildly/morbidly amused by this use of the word "insurgent". I mean, they're the natives. They live there. It's their country. If they're the insurgents, what does that make the US?
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 1:57 PM on January 12, 2005


Insurgents...

I often find myself driving arouns, and notice a group of 3+ youths skateboarding along, or hanging out on a street corner and think to myself... "insurgents" "rebels" "anti-coalition forces"

It's only a matter of time.
posted by Balisong at 2:00 PM on January 12, 2005


Mulp, if we called them anything else, maybe some patriots out there would think "Hey.....even if the new rulers SAID they were benevolent, and here to help....if someone invaded MY country, I'd sure as hell make roadside bombs."

And we can't let any kind of empathizing to occur!
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 2:00 PM on January 12, 2005


Two years ago I bet a dude they would never find more than maybe a barrel of Sarin or mustard gas and Saddam was in no way a STRATEGIC military threat due to WMD. To THIS fucking day this guy SWEARS that all that WMD was sent to Syria.

So THAT is the state of this country. That such consonant dissonance can exist to believe such absurd mythology. For what? So your particular philosophical fetish can continue to dominate the political paradigm? All for a lie.

I was completely for regime change in Iraq - a worthy moral goal set forth by Clinton. The threat Saddam represented is only tangentially geo-strategic... he made the mistake of bringing up the "E" word. Euros. He set the trend of converting from petrodollars to Euros.

And THAT was a real threat. But one that could have been resolved by less drastic measures. As it is now we have exacerbated that, and every other type of threat we face in the world.

Every citizen who voted for Bush and believed this mans bullshit should IMMEDIATELY make pilgrimage to Walter Reed Hospital and volunteer to nurse and council the thousands of mutilated kids whose futures they and the GOP have murdered.
posted by tkchrist at 2:02 PM on January 12, 2005


Well, mania, considering a lot of us (including myself) have been right all along, let me offer you this tantalizing glimpse of the next four years:

Increased violence leading up to the elections, a sham government that only strengthens the ranks of the insurgency, and our prideful, arrogant need to prove everyone wrong by staying the course, which means more dead Iraqis, more dead Americans, increased fanaticism in countries like Egypt, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, which will lead to an increase in terrorism on our own home soil, which means even more dead Americans.

So, kind of like Vietnam, only imagine the Viet Cong blowing themselves up in the Mall of America every couple of months.

Yep, good times...
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:04 PM on January 12, 2005


tk, my girlfriend's dad is like that.
"Everyone knows they're in Syria."
Yeah, you, a person who only watches one news channel, know more than the CIA and international nuclear watchdogs and a Bush-controlled military, all put together. Bravo, sir.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 2:07 PM on January 12, 2005


Bush got reelected. Therefore, no need to try to justify things anymore.
posted by SisterHavana at 2:07 PM on January 12, 2005


12. Profit!

only if you're on the board of execs for haliburton, its subsidiaries, or one of the puppets in the iraqi "government."
posted by lord_wolf at 2:08 PM on January 12, 2005


Wow, even O.J. searches better than this!

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not a fan of the president, but, seriously, what do you want him to do?

Seppuku is the only honorable recourse at this point.
posted by rushmc at 2:09 PM on January 12, 2005


Oh man!! wouldn't a public seppuku by a sitting president be a SURE RINGER to put yourself in the history books, tho...

Kids 200 years from now would be forced to learn your name!! And why.
posted by Balisong at 2:12 PM on January 12, 2005


Popular Ethics I loved how your link above has a graphic (courtesy of the white house) stating "IRAQ: Denial and Deception" (sorry for the link dupe, it's just too good).

Uh, who's lying? Who's doing the deceiving?
posted by lowlife at 2:14 PM on January 12, 2005


Rarrr. Argh. What else can I say?
posted by agregoli at 2:24 PM on January 12, 2005


You are all so blind and stupid that it's...well there are no words. Again, everyone though they were there; I suspect they're in Syria and Lebanon, but the essential is that everyone thought they were there, except, obviously all of you smart asses.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:28 PM on January 12, 2005


The Americans
The French
The Russians
The Egyptians
The Saudis
The Germans
The UN
The British


So, all of you, FUCK OFF for your cheap, baseless quips.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:30 PM on January 12, 2005


Better than being a dunbass..

Or ruling the world by dumbassery.
posted by Balisong at 2:30 PM on January 12, 2005


Warning: Paris overload imminent. Clear the area immediately.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:31 PM on January 12, 2005



Nope, they're not under there...
posted by Fezboy! at 2:32 PM on January 12, 2005


**makes Paris some soothing tea to qualm his inflamed asshole**
posted by Balisong at 2:32 PM on January 12, 2005


Always attack, never defend. It works for the Scientologists and it can work for you, too!
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:34 PM on January 12, 2005


There's a special place in Hell for people who impute bad intent to someone who makes a mistake. Enjoy your stay there.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:36 PM on January 12, 2005


There's a special place in hell for people who send others into the meat grinder, too...
posted by Balisong at 2:37 PM on January 12, 2005


There's a special place in Hell for people who impute bad intent to someone who makes a mistake. Enjoy your stay there

isn't there also a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

so in the words of the late curtis mayfield, if there's a hell below, we're all gonna go.

actually, thanks to the fuck up(s) of your boy in washington d.c., natural disasters and other shit, we're already there.
posted by lord_wolf at 2:40 PM on January 12, 2005


There's a special place in Hell for people who impute bad intent to someone who makes a mistake.

The kind of mistake that has murdered 15,000 people.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:43 PM on January 12, 2005


Clinton was impeached.
I repeat:
Clinton was impeached.
Once more:
Clinton was impeached.

naw, I must be mistaken...
posted by hellbient at 2:43 PM on January 12, 2005


Clinton shouldn't have been impeached. Next?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:46 PM on January 12, 2005


(((Boggle)))

**brain explodes**
posted by Balisong at 2:49 PM on January 12, 2005


Actually, the "mistake" has, overall, saved human lives; just not American human lives. Probably several hundred thousand Iraqi lives. Especially when you subtract from the death-total the terrorists.

But that's a separate argument.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:51 PM on January 12, 2005


Clinton, however flawed, however dellusional and negligent on the foreign polict front, should not have been impeached.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:53 PM on January 12, 2005


But BECAUSE Clinton was impeached over (really) such a minor offence such as lying about a blowjob, (and everybody knows it...) this has thus raised the bar for impeachment to where you would have to be caught eating live babies on national television before anyone would think it would be worthy...

Impeachmentable offences happen twice a week in this administration if all you needed was what it took for Clinton.
posted by Balisong at 2:53 PM on January 12, 2005


Paris, you know, sometimes the "spoiled child throwing a tantrum" act isn't the only possible response. Could you stop being so predictable?
posted by ludwig_van at 2:54 PM on January 12, 2005


Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, Bush should be impeached and Paris, you're continuing to talk out your ass. You're saying Bush made an honest mistake in attacking Iraq?

No, honest mistakes are owned up to. This was a calculated lie perpetuated by everyone involved. And that is a fraud and a conspiracy to commit fraud.

Indict Bush!
posted by fenriq at 2:55 PM on January 12, 2005


Come on, guys. We're being way too hard on Bushco., they just made a simple mistake!
posted by puke & cry at 2:55 PM on January 12, 2005


Paris, out of his own fucking mouth, President Chimpo claims he didn't make a mistake. Justify as you wish, but wailing "we all make mistakes, yah yah yah" ain't gonna convince me of anything, except of your psychotic zeal to defend the indefensible. Yes, bunches of other folks thought there were WMDs, but bunches of other folks didn't start a fucking war over their "mistake".

And just so you don't waffle again by equating actions:

Assuming the existance of WMDs where there are none = MISTAKE.

Starting a goddamn war because of your assumption!!!! = evil intent.

Do you get it yet, Paris?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:55 PM on January 12, 2005


To THIS fucking day this guy SWEARS that all that WMD was sent to Syria.

This is simple to counter: If the objective was to secure the WMD threat by invading Iraq and the WMD then moved to Syria because of the invasion, the premise behind the war is still a failure. Invading the country made the WMD (and the world) less secure.

Voila.
posted by effwerd at 2:56 PM on January 12, 2005


Impeachable offenses /= foreign policy you don't like. Try getting a guy whose policy you like elected.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:58 PM on January 12, 2005


So you don't think Bush should be indicted anymore, PP?
posted by turaho at 2:59 PM on January 12, 2005


Somebody forgot Poland.
posted by LionIndex at 2:59 PM on January 12, 2005


Impeachable offences happen twice a week in this administration if all you needed was what it took for Clinton.

On that note, think of what all the Bush defenders would be saying if this had happened while Clinton was in office. Do you think they'd be saying "whoops, he made a simple mistake!" and let it go at that? Or do you think they'd be screaming for his head on a platter?

I think we all know what would happen.
posted by SisterHavana at 2:59 PM on January 12, 2005


No, see, when I forward an e-mail and it bounces because of a typo, that's a mistake. When I turn the key in my ignition when the car is already running, that's a mistake.

When the Commander-in-Chief testifies before a joint session of Congress on primetime TV with absolute certainty that a sworn enemy possesses weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them on us, accompanied by doomsday visions of mushroom clouds to justify "pre-emptive war" on a sovereign nation without the support of our traditional allies, resulting in the deaths of 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians and 1300+ US soldiers plus 10,000+ wounded, and borrows $200,000,000,000+ to do it, and blames everyone but himself...that's not a mistake. Certainly it's not a "mistake" if he refuses to admit it.

I'm not sure if there's a single word for a lying son of a bitch's betrayal of the entire world's trust and subsequent colossal fuckup of epic proportions while blamestorming everyone from the CIA to Howard Dean, but "mistake" just doesn't cover it.

"Whoops...I accidentally took the world's greatest superpower to war with a nation who posed no threat! Whoops, I shocked and awed Baghdad for weeks! Whoops I think the Geneva Conventions are quaint!"

"Mistake" my ass, Paramus. I'd like to remind you of that other sin -- bearing false witness.
posted by edverb at 3:00 PM on January 12, 2005


one thing's for sure:
we'll never find the WMD's now...
posted by hellbient at 3:00 PM on January 12, 2005


SisterHavana... I for one would be calling for his head on a stick.
posted by Balisong at 3:01 PM on January 12, 2005


Actually, turaho, it's not that PP doesn't think Bush should no longer be indicted as it is the case that he made the claim with false bravado thinking it inconceivable that the NBC weapons would not be found.
posted by Fezboy! at 3:01 PM on January 12, 2005


Fezboy!, Did you mean "NBC weapons" as media created?

Or is there some nomenclature that I haven't caught onto yet..
posted by Balisong at 3:05 PM on January 12, 2005


Actually, the "mistake" has, overall, saved human lives; just not American human lives. Probably several hundred thousand Iraqi lives. Especially when you subtract from the death-total the terrorists.

Hahahahahaha. Oh. Was it the "Sanctions" that would have killed more Iraqis? Or are you using your Karnak powers to read what "would" have been if Saddam or Uday would have ruled another thirty years?

Sorry bud. Morally speaking that doesn't wash.

So please explain this "separate argument".

I suspect they're in Syria and Lebanon

You! You owe me money mother fucker!

Lemme explain again:
1 - Syria - Bekka Valley - historical enemies of Saddam. Handing them free WMD - absurd premise.
2 - Logistical nightmare moving them.
3 - So YOU know they are there. And YOU know HOW exactly.
4... oh you ain't listening anyway...
posted by tkchrist at 3:05 PM on January 12, 2005


Neuro-Biological-Chemical... Nevermind...
posted by Balisong at 3:05 PM on January 12, 2005


No, actually, Wulfgar, YOU don't get it. Even amongst those Americans who didn't vote for Bush, most voted for Kerry because of the outcome of the Iraqi War; not because they think Bush lied. Of course, I think, on a scale of 1-10, the war is going well: a 7 or 7.5.

(What's even lamer is to blame the President for the executiion of the War. The War is being executed by the military, which is only marginally a creature of the Bush Administration. Oh, whatever, the War will, probably sooner than later, change to the point where even Metafilter dwellers will not be able to call it a failure. And then you'll all move on to the next issue du jour Gauchere....)

On preview: how is moving potent toxins a logistic nighmare? Is moving boxes of Sweet n Low a logistical nighmare? As it is, much of the violence in Iraq is being orchestrated from Syrian territory.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:08 PM on January 12, 2005


I think the whole idea of dismissing Iraq as an "honest" mistake is so severely laughable. The whole idea behind "imminent threat" and "clear and present danger" is that there should be extremely little room for mistakes. The doctrine of preemptive war is predicated on certainty. Lack of certainty is what makes a preemptive war doctrine so tenuous. What the Bush side of things fails to understand is that the rest of us don't think we should treat life so callously. You want to start a war with no clear provocation? Fine, you damn well better have your shit together because thousands of people are going to die and billions of dollars are going to be spent. Bushco had a shit load of "maybe," "possible," and "chances of" but what they didn't have was any proof.
posted by effwerd at 3:09 PM on January 12, 2005


Why is it that my head wants to explode when I read Paris's stunning contra-reality lunacy, instead of his head exploding when reality confronts him?

Is there a DSM-IV category for his particular form of delusion?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:09 PM on January 12, 2005


NBC = Nuclear-Biological-Chemical which is the non-emotive, technical terminology for what this administration has bastardized as Weapons of Mass Destruction.
posted by Fezboy! at 3:09 PM on January 12, 2005


"which is only marginally a creature of the Bush Administration"

Wasn't that Frontline episode posted right here on MeFi? Didn't is show how Rummy was trying to exert greater civilian control over the Pentagon. Didn't he say that if he were given complete control over post-war Iraq that he would be completely accountable for the results? Isn't Rummy a little more than marginally a creature of the Bush administration?
posted by effwerd at 3:11 PM on January 12, 2005


Guys, that was harsh. You made the coward cry.
posted by substrate at 3:12 PM on January 12, 2005


This thread is really something. Don't you all have anything better to do than baiting ParisParamus, trying to one-up each other with asinine little quips about Bush and congratulating yourselves? I don't even understand what everyone's talking about here. Is there any debate? Or just a few hundred people who all completely agree with one another and can't wait to jump all over the slightest dissent? This is so unproductive it boggles the mind. Please, instead of adding another worthless comment to this or other threads that just regurgitate the same story over and over, write a letter to your senator, newspaper, a neighbour, anyone but the captive audience here. Get a pen pal in one of the red states, go speak to the senior citizens in a nursing home, get on your local cable access public affairs show. You are not changing anything by preaching to the choir and getting your ego stroked. Go and do something. Anything else but this.
posted by loquax at 3:13 PM on January 12, 2005


Loquax try posing at LGF sometime... I feel your pain, Paris!!
posted by Balisong at 3:15 PM on January 12, 2005


Even amongst those Americans who didn't vote for Bush, most voted for Kerry because of the outcome of the Iraqi War; not because they think Bush lied.

Prove it. You're making this shit up as you go, aren't you?

(What's even lamer is to blame the President for the executiion of the War. The War is being executed by the military, which is only marginally a creature of the Bush Administration.

???????????
Do the words "Commander In Chief" have any meaning in your delusions, Paris?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:17 PM on January 12, 2005


That's why I bury provisions and ammunition...

For the time will come when all this will be naught.
And there will be a few who cary the torches and help others to build the New World...


Hehe..
posted by Balisong at 3:18 PM on January 12, 2005


Don't you all have anything better to do than baiting ParisParamus, trying to one-up each other with asinine little quips about Bush and congratulating yourselves?

What, does he have a special account where he gets to spew ridiculous crap and no one gets to call it out?

People are expressing their feelings on the issue; that seems to be what the comment box is for. I don't think anyone here assumes they're being productive by posting, so you're arguing with something of a straw man.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:18 PM on January 12, 2005


Effwerd, you might have a bit more credibility without such a "clever" name.

Why do so many people get a thrill out of preaching to the choir? Metafilter is the choir; the Big Hate "W" Circlejerk in cyberspace. Oh....you're all so fucking wise and clever.

Keep telling yourself that.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:20 PM on January 12, 2005


Balisong: I don't like the comments at LGF. They are mindless, repetitive and intolerant of different viewpoints. Sound familiar? I would have hoped that you would have actually given some thought to what I said, but clearly the need to lash out prevailed. Constructive and educational, thanks!
posted by loquax at 3:22 PM on January 12, 2005


Loquax, I agree re LGF.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:24 PM on January 12, 2005


Loquax-- Then what the heck are YOU doing to perpare/fix the situation...

You're typing on a keyboard, too...

I type on a keyboard and polish my weapons and wait...
posted by Balisong at 3:25 PM on January 12, 2005


Everyone on LGF wants my head on a stick and aren't afraid to be graphic about it.

I still post there, and throw love in their face (like the tea comment for Paris) and they HATE IT!!

But I post there.. and take abuse, and try to persuade, be it snarky and trollish, and maybe JUST MAYBE I may learn something that I may agree with them on...

I'm sorry if you think I lashed out... I try not to do that to posters unsubstantuated, and I wasn't trying to attack you or your post.
posted by Balisong at 3:30 PM on January 12, 2005


Don't you all have anything better to do than baiting ParisParamus

Hell no.

I Love Paul Krugman! He, better than any writer I have seen, cuts through all the political BS to expose the Republican party, whose members, for the most part, obtain office by cleverly deceiving the little people on what is in their interest.

Just a Reminder That The White House is Occupied by a Clueless, Dangerous Man. I'm not sure what to add, except I wish he would just resign. And that I wish the median national IQ would rise into the low 90's.

Harping on, and celebrating President Reagan and his supposed accomplishments given credibility to our current dim President.

Extra credit:

Now if there was only some way to make those rural W voters aware of the situation before the next election. Unfortunately, they haven't seemed to catch on any time in the past, so I don't see how one Times article will help.
posted by quirked at 12:50 PM PST on April 11

Not likely, Quirked: it's the people you can fool all of the time who decide most elections.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:27 PM PST on April 11

posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:31 PM on January 12, 2005


Paris: So I guess actually responding to any question directly posed to you is out of the question, as per usual. You may continue with the usual "you're all so fucking wise and clever" blather.
posted by puke & cry at 3:33 PM on January 12, 2005


Paul Krugman went over the rabid edge some time in 2002. In any case, that statement amounts to little more than a truism; you say I got fooled; I say the opposite--then what?
posted by ParisParamus at 3:33 PM on January 12, 2005


Paris, your basing my credibility on my screen name? Wow.
posted by effwerd at 3:36 PM on January 12, 2005


What if it stands for Freedom?
posted by effwerd at 3:36 PM on January 12, 2005


Balisong - First, I'm Canadian. Second, I'm not passionately opposed to the Bush administration or US policy. If I were, I'd like to think that (other than IRL activities) I would be on LGF engaging their membership, or otherwise *debating* and trying to change minds, even a little. What's the point of political discourse with strangers otherwise? I'm not making the kind of comments here that seem to me like empty rhetoric and meaningless platitudes. Which aren't horrible in and of themselves, but hundreds of them, all sharing the same viewpoint are an utter waste of time, and chew up energy that could be spent on anything else. Unless of course, this is just pure entertainment, in which case the "outrage" and "horror" is even more obnoxious and tiresome.

Sorry if I overreacted to you, I didn't mean to single anyone out or disparage everyone in this thread. This thread is just too much for me, and is well below metafilter's usual standards, even for politics.
posted by loquax at 3:37 PM on January 12, 2005


I agree with ParisParamus: Bush should be impeached.
posted by Justinian at 3:37 PM on January 12, 2005


And I wasn't preaching to the choir, I was presenting counter-opinion to your assertions.
posted by effwerd at 3:37 PM on January 12, 2005


Armatage, also, I would not disagree with the proposition that, perhaps a majority of the electorate is pretty stupid--on both sides of the aisle. But that's all there is. And even more education cannot assure wisdom--take France, for instance.

When the dialog runs 98-to-2, Bush is a dangerous, evil dummy, the burden is on those in a majority to say something better than what the other 97 have previously and subsequently said.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:39 PM on January 12, 2005


Logistical Nightmare

Syria and Iraq were hostile to eachother. That. And. Moving dangerous toxins and their launch vehicles - supposedly in sufficient enough quantities to be a direct *strategic threat* to the US main land as outlined by Bush, Powell and Cheney (then later retracted) - all the while under the watchful gaze of OUR spy sats and under OUR no-fly.

Yes. Paris. I say that is a "logistical nightmare".

But the premise is absurd. And you, nor ANYONE, who proposes it can prove it.

And. Notice the administration says NO such thing anymore.

So you all rely on this laughable little fantasy to help you sleep at night. All the while the low income neighborhood kids across town get to spend a life time in a wheelchair. If they are lucky.

BTW. I am mostly a conservative; just to make it bit harder to lump me as an "evil liberal" and dismiss me outright.

Stop defending this ass Bush and do what is RIGHT. The man is not even a conservative for Christ sake.

Such low principles make me sick. Seriously.
posted by tkchrist at 3:40 PM on January 12, 2005


I want a big fucking SORRY from this guy.

I'm sure I can find a few from you, too, Paris.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:40 PM on January 12, 2005


Paul Krugman went over the rabid edge some time in 2002. In any case, that statement amounts to little more than a truism; you say I got fooled; I say the opposite--then what?

Then nothing. Replace "Paul Krugman" with "George Bush" in the above and it still applies.

I'm genuinely curious how much of your current anti-left anti-Democrat pit-bull stance is genuine. It's obvious from your pre-9/11 posts that you were firmly in the anti-Bush camp; in fact, you sound like a true-blue brie-eating elitist. Other than his response to 9/11 (which you obviously agree with), all of the things you despised about Bush and the Republicans then are still true now; even more so now. How much are you willing to swallow because of 9/11?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:45 PM on January 12, 2005


"Syria and Iraq were hostile to each other."

Well they are now. Before, on a realpolitik level, not. They're both Baathist (sp?) regimes. They have the same origins in a part of the world where that still matters big. They both are enemies of the US, Israel, and democracy.

So I deeply question that premise.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:47 PM on January 12, 2005


On a realpolitik level, Iraq was not a threat. Ever.
posted by Balisong at 3:51 PM on January 12, 2005


Rathergate v.s. Saddam's WMDs, a quantitative comparison.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:51 PM on January 12, 2005


There's a special place in Hell for people who impute bad intent to someone who makes a mistake.

killing 10's of thousands of civilians knowlingly or unknowlingly falls under the category of "bad intent".

where is today's bonhoeffer?
posted by specialk420 at 3:55 PM on January 12, 2005


Armitage, I think I'm pretty well aligned with Christopher Hitchens. I'm still Left of center in that I consider myself progressive. But the disgraceful way the Democrats and Left acted vis a vis 9/11 and, even more so, toward Iraq, drove me to question the integrity of most of the "progressive forces." Kerry was disgraceful (as well as inconsistent). "Old Europe's" behavior vis a vis Iraq was disgusting (and now we know, the product of genuine graft), and there was "no one Left" to trust. So here I am supporting the mosr credible side. Sorry, for more detail, Metafilter ain't the place.

Iraq was certainly a threat. Because it had--was believed to have--the means to distribute WMDs to whomever would blow up the US or Israel or Europe.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:56 PM on January 12, 2005


specialk420: you don't know shit about what intent means.

I'm out of here: got a life to try and lead. E-mails are welcomed.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:57 PM on January 12, 2005


Paris, You thought...
posted by Balisong at 3:58 PM on January 12, 2005


--the means to distribute WMDs to whomever would blow up the US or Israel or Europe.

means that pakistan (and vis a vis the ISI the primary supporters of the taliban) doesn't have?
posted by specialk420 at 4:01 PM on January 12, 2005


I am willing to accept that mistakes happen, especially in intelligence gathering. Intelligence can be manipulated, misinterpreted or just plain wrong. Intelligence mistakes are the very reason that preemptive wars are a bad idea, akin to convicting somebody for a crime that they might commit later.

I think that the obvious conclusion is that, despite our fears, we need to wait until we have been attacked to retaliate. We need to be vigilant and be prepared so that, when we are attacked, we can come down on the attackers like a ton of molten lead.

IMO, this preemptive war against a (in retrospect) negligible enemy has left us less prepared in the event of a real attack.

So, the problem with Bush and company is not making a mistake in intelligence gathering. The problem is that the Bush Doctrine is a seriously flawed foreign policy and should be ditched.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:01 PM on January 12, 2005


And even more education cannot assure wisdom--take France, for instance.

I would never accuse you of flip-flopping on France.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:04 PM on January 12, 2005


Thanks Paris!! Just as described!!Would Argue again!! A+++
posted by Balisong at 4:16 PM on January 12, 2005


Gob Bless American't
posted by eener at 4:16 PM on January 12, 2005


Indeed, well said ParisParamus; Bush really should be impeached.

Paris, you know, I'd absolutely love to talk to you in real life, in a coffeeshop for a whole afternoon; just to sit down with you where you couldn't scream and yell irrational, snide comments like "you're just so fucking clever" whenever I brought up some kind of factual information and asked for your response. I'll be driving up the east coast tomorrow, if you'd like to sit down and chat. Hell, we could make a Meetup of it, wouldn't that be fun?

Also, just for your information: I represent one person who did not believe, ever, that Saddam posed a threat to the United States because of "wmd's." Just, you know, saying.
posted by odinsdream at 4:18 PM on January 12, 2005


JoeyM: that's a different debate; it's actually a debate; this thread is premised on the stupidity of denying the overwelming consensus and evidence of Iraq having WMDs--even if it was wrong (and, again, I'm not convinced, in view of Saadam's behavior).

Also, as for Pakistan, despite saber rattling, its leaders have never come close to the wacko-dom of SHussein. Now, while North Korea has, it hasn't so much outside its borders; and, in any case, we went to war there.

Also, I think it's lame to point to other countries we haven't attacked. As if, we can only attack one, if we attack all. Come on!

NOW I'm out of here.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:18 PM on January 12, 2005


Odinsdream, believe it or not, I have very little interest or patience for political discussions in person. I'm only driven here based on the onesideness of all the talk; if it were less lopsided, I'd almost always stay on the sidelines.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:21 PM on January 12, 2005


I'm only driven here based on the onesideness of all the talk


And the constant Bush bashing, I assume.

posted by eyeballkid at 4:43 PM on January 12, 2005


Why didn´t they just look in the area around Baghdad and Tikrit? We know they are there. Who the hell is running this tamasha? A monkey could do a better job.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:46 PM on January 12, 2005


So is Paris' current stand a flip-flop or did he change his mind given changes in the facts?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:57 PM on January 12, 2005


Amusing that Paris is as incapable of saying "I was wrong" as his much-ballyhooed Prezn't.

this thread is premised on the stupidity of denying the overwelming consensus and evidence of Iraq having WMDs--even if it was wrong

What overwhelming consensus? Sure as hell most of the world did not rally behind the USA in its attack on Iraq.

Hell, even those who were supposedly on-board with the whole thing disclaimed their support publicly when Bush tried to use them as propaganda.

What overwhelming evidence? Hell, what evidence at all? Shit, it seems most everyone but you knew that it was all bullshit from the get-go. There was no evidence. There were just transparent lies.

"Even if it was wrong"? WTF? IF? Give your head a shake!
posted by five fresh fish at 5:05 PM on January 12, 2005


Also, as for Pakistan, despite saber rattling, its leaders have never come close to the wacko-dom of SHussein.

While that might be true, it's not the leader of Pakistan who's the problem - he can barely retain power. He could be gone tomorrow, replaced by a pretty conservative Muslim theocracy. That strikes me as a more serious problem than Iraq ever was.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:05 PM on January 12, 2005


9/11 certainly drove me further right... made me abandon many of those quaint fluffy little Politically Correct ideas we once had about all "cultures" being equal, etc.

More so though 9/11 made me see clearly what an out-of-his-depth-gilded-age fool Bush REALLY is.

The invasion of Iraq only confirmed it.

With Iraq, Bush has given OBL everything he wanted and more. Supporting this president in that is not only dangerous but immoral.

Voting for him in 2000 was a complete failure on my part no matter how I despised Clinton. A mistake I would never make again in 2004.
posted by tkchrist at 5:08 PM on January 12, 2005


I love PPs strategy: everyone complains about obvious and admitted fact - the absence of WMDs - based on the recent announcement that the search is over and the subsequent realization that we no longer believe we will find them. The outrage at this fact is so overwhelming that almost everyone posts to express their pissiness. And so, PP, rather than endorse his earlier statement regarding what is at stake for W and this administration regarding Iraqi WMDs, instead complains about how since reality matched everyone else's perceptions regarding WMDs, that everyone else is really preaching to the choir.

And for the last fucking time, because I actually believe PP is much smarter than this, but can't we just admit the inherent contradiction in the "Saddam was a danger because he could have spread WMD" argument? Forget the obvious fact that all empirical evidence shows that he didn't give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists before he fully abandoned his programs in 98. No, the more strikingly absurd part of the Saddam's danger claim is that Saddam cannot simultaneously have the capacity to make WMD and the will to make WMD and not have made WMD. If both premises are correct, the conclusion should be that he had them, or was in the active process of developing them, and there is no evidence that either is true. In fact, the extant evidence points to the opposite.
posted by hank_14 at 5:15 PM on January 12, 2005


And by overwhelming evidence, what is actually meant is complete lack of substance. I read the declassified 2002 Intel Assessment on Iraq and nowhere in it does it say anything conclusively about WMD in Iraq. The Bushco side comes out of this looking like a bunch of paranoid pansies with a dominant military. "We invaded cuz we were scared!"

And now, Bush looks like the worst form of leader there is, "I didn't fail, everyone around me did." I'd fire any manager that said that shit, true or not.
posted by effwerd at 5:22 PM on January 12, 2005


Did I miss it? Did ParisParamus do either of: living up to his previous pledge, or explicitly disavowing it?
posted by NortonDC at 5:25 PM on January 12, 2005


The man is not even a conservative for Christ sake.

This needs to be pointed out. If he were a real conservative, things would be better. Not great, but better.
posted by oaf at 5:29 PM on January 12, 2005


PP did what is best for PP....he left.
posted by NationalKato at 5:39 PM on January 12, 2005


Did ParisParamus do either of: living up to his previous pledge, or explicitly disavowing it?

Neither. He did what the fantasy based community always does. He claimed that his values are superior to ours because we are stating the obvious, and its much more noble to fight the consensus. In the world of Paris, its more moral to maintain balance between views than to admit an obvious bias towards what is a proven fact. IN the world of Paris, it is okay to argue that the Earth is flat, lest the round-worlders create an immoral echo chamber. Hence, in the world of Paris, its okay, and in fact more blessed, that thousands have died for a lie (and continue to die), in order that we don't blindly follow the truth. God forbid the facts should bind us to the hell that is agreement with the evidence, even on MetaFilter.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:00 PM on January 12, 2005


oaf - I pointed this out to every Republican I know. They kind of shrug like "what ya gonna do?".

This Iraq War is going exactly as all the Pentagon planners, experienced with Gulf War 1 said it would. Scowcroft said "we will be the Red Coats." My god. We are. We are the Red Coats now.

What were a bunch of thungs, criminals and Fedayn goons blowing up children are now becoming mostly young men who are simply fighting for their country, their tribe, their religion against a foreign occupying army.

All the old guard ALL cautioned Bush what was going to happen if he went ahead and isolated us there with this unjustified preemptive bullshit. If he didn't find the slam dunk WMD stockpiles. Guerilla war. Religious factions. Balkanization. Civil war.

Well. The chickens are coming home to roost. In body bags.
posted by tkchrist at 6:01 PM on January 12, 2005


Paris, for the sake of argument, I'd like to have you list the events that would have to occur for you to be convinced of the truth of the recent findings...that there are no WMD's.

Reason I ask is... though you may prance through this argument on several different points, this is at the heart: What would it take to convince you? I'm not asking you to concede defeat or admit wrongness, I'm asking - hypothetically - what is your standard of proof? What would have to occur, what body of people, which standards followed, and which forms filled out, which witnesses deposed, would you require in order to reach the personal conclusion that Saddam had no WMDs that were a threat to the U.S.? (note this is an even lower standard than none at all... that's for your benefit, since having none is even worse than having some that just weren't a threat)

It is not enough to say "Everybody knew he had them." ... because that isn't an answer to the question. I'm asking a hypothetical, here, because it's important to understand where you're coming from - since it seems you're coming from a position that it is Literally Impossible to prove that there were no WMD's... literally impossible. That, of course, is absurd, so you must have some kind of checklist in mind. I'm just wondering what it is.
posted by odinsdream at 7:32 PM on January 12, 2005


hank_14:
Can't we just admit the inherent contradiction in the "Saddam was a danger because he could have spread WMD" argument?
The contradiction you laid out against this argument isn't the only one. If the goal of the war was to stop Iraq from spreading WMD, and we now conclude that these weapons have been moved (spread) to Syria and/or Iran without us being able to intercept any of them, then the war itself is an abject failure.
posted by dkg at 8:06 PM on January 12, 2005


the war is an abject failure by any standard you use, and people continue to die daily. What now? is the real question, i think.

We who said it was bullshit from the beginning were right, but we're not the ones calling the shots. So--will our soldiers and innocent iraqis continue to die or no? My vote, unfortunately, is yes, they will, because bush won't admit he was wrong and made a horribly deadly mistake.
posted by amberglow at 8:12 PM on January 12, 2005


Or just a few hundred people who all completely agree with one another and can't wait to jump all over the slightest dissent?

How is it dissent? No links in any of the arguments. Merely broad statements that are very hard to swallow given the facts. No weapons found? They're in Syria then. That's dissent?

I'm typing this from a country which is a member of the coalition of the unwilling because though some of our leaders may have believed there was evidence of WMD they stood by the U.N.'s position and the principles of multilateral agreements rather than renegade action.
posted by juiceCake at 8:15 PM on January 12, 2005


I can't believe dozens of intelligent people allow a total imbecile to get you so riled up.

Pardon...

two total imbeciles.

Paris: You my friend, are the best of the worst of this country.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:15 PM on January 12, 2005


loquax, I can understand your point about a one-sided echo chamber effect. I like the idea of a debate, if it's possible, but that's so hard to do when faced with a faith-based position.

Seems to me, no matter what evidence comes out of Iraq, the pro-War folks try very hard to realign their reasons and justification when faced with evidence --facts. One wonders what would happen if Bush did resign, how would that be spun?

Maybe this "circle jerk" is a necessity. Maybe some people spend their lives surrounded by people with "interesting" faith-based positions on everything that matters to them. Everyone needs an outlet, and when ParisParamus comes along he's providing some therapy --good on you ParisParamus!
posted by gsb at 8:51 PM on January 12, 2005


There's a special place in Hell for people who impute bad intent to someone who makes a mistake. Enjoy your stay there.

I'll be sure to see you and about 20,000 other mefites there as well.
posted by Dean Keaton at 9:16 PM on January 12, 2005


There was only one way the invasion of Iraq was legal without United Nations mandate, and that's if Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States and we were acting in self defense. Without WMDs, Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, we weren't acting in self defense, and Bush brought us into a war in violation of the law of the United States.

A little background...

Constitution, Article VI: "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"

On 24, October, 1945, the treaty that formed the United Nations ("The United Nations Charter"), was ratified by the United States, becoming, along with the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Articles 33 through 51 of the treaty (aka, the Supreme Law of the Land) govern conflicts between countries. They only allow a member country to take action against another member country in self-defense, or with UN mandate.


I'm willing to accept that the self-defense clause might cover a preemptive strike, if there were damn good, irrefutable intelligence. Being as we citizens still haven't seen the evidence that we went to war with, but knowing what the outcome was, I would say that that standard wasn't met.
posted by Laen at 9:22 PM on January 12, 2005


We who said it was bullshit from the beginning were right....

And that simple fact is what drives the hysteria on the right in this country. They will continue to lash out, mostly irrationally, as we see above and across the nation.

They will continue to howl when truth is spoken to them, and they will persist in trying to stifle that truthtelling, usually through the most craven means imaginable.

At some level, these people understand how wrong they have been, and it is practically an unbearable knowledge...given the bloodshed that has transpired. They have my sympathy.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:23 PM on January 12, 2005


I agree wth Paris Paramus: George W. Bush should be indicted.
posted by Dean Keaton at 9:23 PM on January 12, 2005


fold_and_mutilate: Imagine if someone was talking that way about you. It wuld almost create an invitation to get pissed and cut off any meaningful communication. Whats your point?
posted by Dean Keaton at 9:25 PM on January 12, 2005


How is it dissent? No links in any of the arguments. Merely broad statements that are very hard to swallow given the facts. No weapons found? They're in Syria then. That's dissent?

Precisely. So why, hours and dozens of comments after Paris said he has left for the evening, are people still trying to get him to answer this question or pointing out that inaccuracy in his earlier statements. Do people think they'll change his mind? Get him to recant his previous thoughts? Or are they looking to score quick points off what they believe is an easy target? For that matter, he's the only target. It's just kind of sad to see so much effort put into posts that are accomplishing nothing, as far as I can see.

(Mostly Wikipedia links follow, for background and neutrality, hopefully)

More on topic, whether or not there were/are wmd's, or they were destroyed/moved to syria/never existed, I wish that more people could acknowledge, on both sides, that nobody outside of the highest levels of government *knew* anything. If you *believed* that there were no wmd's in Iraq, you appear to have been correct in selecting which beliefs to subscribe to in this particular matter. Like how people just know who's going to win the World Series. You didn't know it, you weren't right all along. It's a teensy tiny bit of self-delusion, the same kind you see when freepers are vindicated by the latest UN corruption scandal or CBS screw up.

Regardless, the "mainstream" thinking was that Saddam was up to all kinds of things before he was deposed. He did try to develop nuclear weapons before the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor. He did use chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians. He was a homicidal maniac who's decisions led to at least a million Iraqi deaths, not to mention Iranian causalities. Believing that he was hiding weapons, or biding his time to make new weapons with siphoned oil money was hardly a giant leap of faith. At the very least, it's hard to believe that had he the opportunity, he would have done whatever possible to further his power and influence at the expense of anyone in his way. In addition, many world leaders in addition to the Bush administration did advocate that very way of thinking. The UN suspected him, that's why the inspectors were there. Clinton did, that's why he bombed Iraq in 1998. You could be excused if you believed that there was broad-based, international, non-partisan support for the theory that there were wmd's in the desert somewhere. Of course, the same did not apply to the strategies for dealing with both that possibility and Saddam and his regime.

So did the Bush administration use wmd as one of the reasons to go to Iraq while they knew there was nothing there? I think it's very hard to conclusively and factually say that. I think that if you're so politically inclined you can infer it from their other actions. I think that at the least the suspicion that the public was lied to will always be there. But that has to be viewed within the context of the rest of the world arguing not that there were no wmd's, but that the UN inspectors should find them and confiscate them rather than going to war. WMD's were also only one of the reasons given by the administration for going to war. Granted, it was likely the reason that resonated most with the American public, but there were others, including the tyranny of the regime, past crimes, potential future crimes and the fact that Iraq had disregarded all of those resolutions that had been agreed to in 1991. And to be perfectly fair, there have been discoveries of stockpiles of troublesome and banned weapons, just not in the quantities or severity once believed.

I was certain that Iraq had all sorts of bad things. Obviously, I and many many other ordinary and extra-ordinary people were wrong. I continue, however, to be sure that Saddam was a horrible, ruthless dictator that would have continued to hold his people hostage and do anything he could to become as powerful as he once was, before the sanctions and the no-fly zones. Notwithstanding anything that has happened since March 31st, even if wmd's had not been part of the justification, I would have supported ending the Baathist rule in Iraq by force. Being Canadian, I likely take any possible lying on the part of the Bush administration less seriously than citizens of the US might, but I still find it hard to believe that they knowingly lied. Surely they would have known that the conversation we are having today would be coming, eventually. As someone else said, if they were lying, wouldn't they have gone to great lengths to plant evidence? Why lie and then have your lie exposed, making you look like fools? I do, on the other hand, find it easy to believe that the administration relied on the conventional wisdom that Saddam had weapons to make their case for them, with the faith that he had to have something nasty up his sleeve.

And if you're still reading, I have the feeling that either way, this story isn't over. It may take decades to figure out what exactly happened, and who knew what when, but it can't just be as simple as a stupid intentional lie exposed. Or rather, that's what I believe in the absence of conclusive evidence of deception
posted by loquax at 9:35 PM on January 12, 2005


I'm a Canuck, too, and I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever imagining the Bush Administration deliberately and maliciously started this war.

There's plenty of documentation re: the machinations they went through to spin the data or get various agencies to report only what the Bush Admin wanted to hear. There's documentation of plans written ages ago, just waiting for an excuse to be put into play. And there's the bit where the Admin ignored and overruled the military's best leaders, because those people were predicting that other paths would lead to disaster (and sure enough, they were right.)

As I see it, the Bush Admin has very deliberately set about to do what they wanted, damn the facts and damn the experts. Their hubris knows no bounds.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:50 PM on January 12, 2005


I don't even understand what everyone's talking about here. Is there any debate? Or just a few hundred people who all completely agree with one another and can't wait to jump all over the slightest dissent? This is so unproductive it boggles the mind.

Awesome work!

I was going to ask why people think it so inconceivable that supplies of nerves gas et al were moved out of the country. I just want to get to the bottom of this, honestly.

But like you said, this thread is just a circle-jerk cum pile-on so that question officially remains unasked by me.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 10:28 PM on January 12, 2005


this thread is just a circle-jerk cum pile-on

Fuck. Gross. You're not invited to my next barbecue, mate. No one wants to hear about that kind of thing outside of a bukkake video.
posted by psmealey at 10:45 PM on January 12, 2005


Bush and Saddam were in a bukkake video together?
posted by Balisong at 10:53 PM on January 12, 2005


Would someone do me a favor and provide a link or two to conservative sites or blogs where I can see what they're saying about this.

Just because I have a need to be even more dismayed...
posted by X4ster at 11:05 PM on January 12, 2005



psmealey

Yes, that rather *ahem* delicious pun cum double entendre was intended.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 11:15 PM on January 12, 2005


Being Canadian, I likely take any possible lying on the part of the Bush administration less seriously than citizens of the US might, but I still find it hard to believe that they knowingly lied. Surely they would have known that the conversation we are having today would be coming, eventually.

This is just completely and utterly dense. The fact that our administrators lied us into a war is completely antithetical to every goddamn thing this country was founded on, as Laen points out above. The proof that the administration lied, willfully and knowingly, has been presented over and over. One more time, just for the hard of thinking, the Bush admin didn't claim that they thought Saddam had WMD, the claimed that they KNEW he had those weapons and claimed boldly before the world community that they even knew exactly how much and WHERE THEY WERE! How obtuse do you have to be to spin that as if its some kind of clerical oversight?

As to why they didn't plant weapons to prove their case, has it ever occurred that they (BushCo) really are fucking incompetent? They didn't protect the explosives that were found, and the press discovered it. They lent consent to the torture of prisoners, and the press found it. This bunch of complete assholes couldn't hide a donut without someone discovering that they had stashed it, and yet there are idiots who believe that they could have planted weapons and gotten away with it? No. Relying on the idea that conspiracy theories are proof of noble intent is lunacy, plain and simple.


Finally, as to whether or not they would have expected that their lies would be discovered, it bares repeating that this bunch of yahoos thought that Iraqis would welcome occupation like the good little darkies they are. It never occurred to these twits that things wouldn't go their way ... nor have they shown any evidence that they would care regardless. Think, I mean really think, about the fact that Bush can't and won't admit to a mistake ... ANY mistake. They don't care what happens on Mefi, or in the media, or in Congress. There is a tyrant in control of America, and he will not accept dissent. The reason for this "circle-jerk", as some of you pathetic apologists would have it, is that Americans need to bond together and have strength for the fight that is coming. We've lost control of our nation, and the lies from Bush have proven it. Defend that all you want. Discourage others from speaking out in this forum or any, you traitors; I don't care. The bottom of it is that the Commander in Chief of the world's largest military is an opportunistic liar, and some of us find that a dangerous and noteworthy thing. If you don't then I suggest you lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way.
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:15 PM on January 12, 2005



Would someone do me a favor and provide a link or two to conservative sites or blogs where I can see what they're saying about this.


Here's LGF's take on it... no apologies there...
posted by Balisong at 11:22 PM on January 12, 2005


Thanks Balisong,
Comments on LGF are about what I would have expected.

Surprised to not have someone here run out the quote, "Of course he must have WMD's, we still have the receipts."

Back in my military days they were referred to as CBR - Chemical Biological & Radioloical.
posted by X4ster at 11:45 PM on January 12, 2005


So, since the 9/11 connection to Iraq was debunked, that leaves just one official reason for the war. I hear we're doing a pretty good job there, too.
posted by Mur at 4:16 AM on January 13, 2005


A list of relevant quotes from the administration on WMDs

my fav, from Ari, of course: The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002

posted by amberglow at 5:23 AM on January 13, 2005


Four More Years Wars!!!!!!

Accountability is a BIG thing, right PP?

[ahem]
I say we hold Dubya accountable. He's a big boy who wanted the position and the responsibility that comes with it so let's light the fire of accountablity under his sorry ass for this deliberate lie. Don't want a double standard or anything.
posted by nofundy at 5:54 AM on January 13, 2005


I agree with ParisParamus: Bush should be impeached.
posted by agregoli at 6:49 AM on January 13, 2005


I'm out of here: got a life to try and lead. E-mails are welcomed.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:57 PM PST on January 12


Given that you DID say:
If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.

ParisParamus, April 29th 2003, at 8:57pm PST


If you are unwilling to take action on having the President indicted, then it shows your words have no meaning, no value.

I understand why you'd be a coward and slink away, never to return - because to actually have your words have meaning, you'd have to act on them.

And you are FAR to gutless to act on your words.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:18 AM on January 13, 2005


I was going to ask why people think it so inconceivable that supplies of nerves gas et al were moved out of the country. I just want to get to the bottom of this, honestly.

How about this:

Our tax dollars are being wasted on a bunch of incompetents who can't find that which exists.

Such a group of incompetent boobs needs to go.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:20 AM on January 13, 2005


36 120-mm mortar rounds containing liquid [were discovered] buried in Southern Iraq. While initial tests suggested that the rounds contained a blister agent, a chemical weapon banned by the Geneva Convention, subsequent analysis by American and Danish experts showed that no chemical agent was present. It appears that the rounds have been buried, and most probably forgotten, since the Iran-Iraq war. Some of the munitions were in an advanced state of decay and most of the weaponry would likely have been unusable.

loquax, that's a "stockpile of troublesome and banned weapons"? You can't be serious.

Your other arguments are equally specious. The horrible examples of Saddam's brutality (gassing the Kurds, killing untold thousands) happened more than a decade before we invaded, while Saddam was our buddy. When taking action might have accomplished something, we did sweet fuck-all.

In the months before the invasion, Blix and his inspectors found nothing resembling the fearsome weaponry BushCo had been ranting about, even after visiting many sites on BushCo's list. Blix asked for a few more weeks to complete the inspection but Bush yanked the team so he could start Shock and Awe.

Don't you remember the hysteria? "The smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud"? "WMDs ready to deploy within 45 minutes"? "We know he has them, we know where they are"? All lies.

I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe you're just a reflexive contrarian and on LGF you'd be arguing the other side. But everything you've brought up here was argued and debated and chewed over for months among whoever was paying attention.

The only thing that's new is the acknowledgment that all of us un-American, Saddam-fellating, treasonous, cowardly moonbats living in a fantasy world -- we were right.
posted by vetiver at 8:06 AM on January 13, 2005


Look. The basic idea, that has been stated over and over again.

Either Saddam didn't have WMDs or the war was executed so poorly that said WMDs were allowed to proliferate to non-state actors ( non-state because if you'll take note, every single one of the neighboring states were Saddam's direct enemies. He didn't have any friends except for us) Thus making the war incredibly poorly executed by incompetents any way you look at it.

There were so many rational, intelligent people who thought that this war was a piss poor idea. So many people. There was the single largest demonstration for a single purpose in the history of the world. More people said that the war in iraq was a bad idea than any other event in the history of the world. The fucking Onion. The goddamned Onion provided a more accurate prediction of the state of affairs than you or the president.

Paris, I'm glad that you've maintained your cognitive dissonance by being able to claim that countries that felt it was not necessary to invade iraq agreed that iraq was a bit worrisome. I'm glad that that makes the war completely justified for you, that France agreed with us. If that is your condition for justification, well i'll grant you that. France agreed with you, only nominally, and only to the degree that they thought we should continue to use inspectors.

You feel you need to provide a counterpoint. You fail miserably. I know you think you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness, spouting reason to the unwashed masses, but you don't really add anything. You just spout one liners, and fail to provide any justification, anything to back it up. I'd have more respect for you, and maybe believe you if perhaps once you could present evidence. Or listened to evidence. I've told you before precisely why moving weapons to syria would be extremely problematic, a logistical nightmare, but you treat the idea that moving weapons to an enemy state under the no-fly zone, through an area controlled by kurds as completely feasible. Untill someone mentions it again, and then oh you just shut up about it. You do get us pissed off because, I like others remember you from before 9/11 when you were fairly reasonable. This type of cognitive dissonance is frightening. Truly. I mean was 9/11 that psychologically destructive? I lived in Lower Manhattan then, I saw it all happen, I lived under martial law, breathed the smoldering flesh of thousands of innocents, was evacuated from my home for two weeks, and had a friend of mine die, most likely burned to death by jet fuel. So, yes it changed everything, but dammit, you don't throw reason to the dogs of war, you don't decide that killing is the fucking answer.

We were right. All of the millions of us who thought this war was a bad idea. We were right. There was no threat. None. And if there was, the way the war was executed has increased the threat, and not decreased it because terrorism is a result of non-state actors, and iraq is now a breeding ground for non-state terrorist actors. A breeding ground, not flypaper, because, if you'll notice, the significant element of the flypaper metaphor is the stickyness, but iraq, if you'll notice, is just like everywhere else. The ground isn't covered with fucking goo, people can and will leave. Non-state actors. We brought the war to them, and turned the the entirety of the muslim world against us, proving precisely how barbaric we can be. Some of us knew. The Onion fucking knew (that point counterpoint thing. I don't have the time to look it up at the moment.) When the Onion has a better prediction algorithm than you, you need to reconsider something.
posted by Freen at 8:51 AM on January 13, 2005


vetiver: My point is that I along with many if not most others of all political stripes believed that Saddam was involved with chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons to one degree or another long before Bush was elected in 2000. This point is totally separate from the issue of support for the war in 2003. Saddam obviously was involved with and used banned offensive weapons at various times in his career and there was no good reason to believe that he'd reformed, or that the sanctions were particularly effective in limiting his rule. Clearly, that line of thinking appears to have been wrong, at least in the absence of any further evidence to the contrary. At the same time, if a lie was told, as opposed to an exaggeration, or sloppiness, or bureaucratic confirmation bias, much of the world would have had to have been in on it long before Bush took office. Even after his administration targeted Iraq many (as evidenced by the links I provided) other countries accepted Iraq's weapons programs as a given or at least suspicious, but disputed how to address it.

So dismissing claims of a threat from Saddam and the existence of wmd's in Iraq as "Bush and Cheney" lying is too simplistic and fails to address why so many other before and after them agreed with the basic premise that Saddam's Iraq was dangerous. Either it wasn't, as so many here take credit for "knowing", and everyone's been lying about the peacefulness of Iraq's military and Saddam's paranoia for the last 15 years. Or it was a threat, but perhaps not as immediate or to the extent that some believed it was. This is when get into the highly philosophical debate over lies vs. exaggeration vs. accountability vs. omissions vs. manipulation. This is also where one's political colours start to show. I think it's undeniable (again, barring further evidence) that Bush bears responsibility for being *wrong* about the claims from his administration that they "knew" that there were weapons in Iraq. For what reason and how much is very much in the eye of the beholder, and not at all the "fact" that some present it as.

I'm not commenting here on the overall justification for the war, or how it has been conducted, or possible outcomes or anything other than the question of responsibility for
claims regarding Iraqi weapons that so far have proved false. The outcome of the war has nothing to do with the relative merits of the US government's and the world's position on Iraq's weapons programs from 1991-March 2003.
posted by loquax at 9:46 AM on January 13, 2005


loquax. First, let me thank you for making reasoned contributions to this debate despite having a controversial view.

From your link: "I think everyone had suspicions at the time. The purpose in all those negotiations was precisely to clear up the suspicions, to see what was behind them and, if need be, to act accordingly. The substance of the debate in fall 2002 was that." - French French Foreign Ministry Spokesperson.

By saying this ammounts to the "rest of the world arguing not that there were no wmd's" you're painting a false dichotomy. The "rest of the world" was saying, we don't have enough evidence to confirm or deny these suspicions. Only two leaders decided they knew enough to justify invasion.

As for the question of plausible deniability, I submit the whitehouse's rush to war proves they were not acting reasonably on the information they were given, but were in fact being decietful. At the time Bush was calling for troops, UNMOVIC was saying (truthfully it turns out) that their inspections were going smoothly, and that "It [would] not take years, nor weeks, but months" to resolve the speculation.
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:59 AM on January 13, 2005


The grade of the threat is the issue.

Iraq was not all that threatening. To the degree to which, although most of the world thought he might have a bit of nasty stuff, it was not worth the blood of their sons and daughters in order to rid him of it.

Apparently they made the correct descision. So Either Bush was lying or he is much more cavalier with peoples lives than a commander in cheif should be, as amply provided by the commander in cheif of just about every other major, militarily capable country in the world who decided they didn't want to go to war.
posted by Freen at 11:43 AM on January 13, 2005


Where did all the infrastructure for chemical warfare go? Didn't there used to be some?
posted by alumshubby at 9:40 AM on January 15, 2005


loquax -- Saddam obviously was involved with and used banned offensive weapons at various times in his career and there was no good reason to believe that he'd reformed

That is a false statement. The inspections provided ample evidence he did not possess WMD and that he was not producing WMD.

...or that the sanctions were particularly effective in limiting his rule.

That is a false statement. The sanctions were spectacularly effective in limiting his rule over the Kurdish north.
posted by NortonDC at 11:00 AM on January 16, 2005


« Older Woman Blows Up Home, Roaches Survive ......  |  MGM animator Irv Spence's cart... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments