« Supernanny | Main | Quote Of The Day »

"Bush lied, people died:" A look at Iraq and the WMD issue

"Bush lied, people died" has become a mantra among opponents of the war, in reference to Iraq's possession or non-possession of weapons of mass destruction. I think it's long past time this allegation has been given a thorough scrutiny.

(Warning: this one is another long one, so I'm stuffing most of it into the extended section)

First, let's clear up the definition of WMDs. WMDs are not nukes. The simplest way to remember what constitutes a WMD is the acronym "NBC" -- Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. Essentially, any weapon that does not rely on explosive or kinetic energy tends to fall into the WMD category. Or, as Tom Clancy once put it, "a nuke is a bug is a gas" as far as WMDs are concerned.

Next, let's look at the pre-war situation from a legalistic standpoint. Many of Bush's critics have said that we went to war without concrete proof that Iraq possessed WMDs. Whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant -- Iraq was not entitled to any presumption of innocence. That such weapons existed is beyond dispute. In a sense, Iraq was a convicted felon on parole, and one of those conditions of parole was submitting to regular drug testing. Saddam had admitted to possessing WMDs before the first Gulf War, and had even used them -- both on Iran and his own people. Under the terms of the ending of that first war, he had to get rid of all his WMD stocks and R&D programs under the world's scrutiny.

Any parole officer who let one of his parolees repeatedly refuse to submit to required drug testing with a reassurance that he was "clean," and grew belligerent when questioned, ought to be fired and the parolee hauled back in. (That probably wouldn't happen in the real world, but it ought to.) Saddam repeatedly forced confrontations with inspectors, often tossing them out entirely, and repeatedly fired on aircraft enforcing the "no-fly" zones. Any single one of those incidents violated the terms ending the first war, and would have justified a resumption of hostilities. That they didn't is testament to both the patience and distaste for war of his adversaries, and the success of his bribery programs -- most notably the graft surrounding the "oil-for-food" scandal.

The situation was further muddied by another series of deceptions by Saddam. Saddam was apparently trying to balance two distinctly opposing perceptions at the same time -- that he was disarmed and harmless to the US and the UN, while simultaneously that he did possess enough weaponry to discourage an attack by his immediate neighbors (Iran, especially). Unfortunately for him, he couldn't keep these two images distinct, and the US picked up on the signals he was trying to send to Iran. Worse, we believed them.

So, that's enough prologue. Let's get to the "meat" of the issue.

There are two basic issues involved in the "Bush lied, people died" mantra, and two possible sides to each issue. Bush did or did not believe Saddam possessed WMDs, and Saddam did or did not possess WMDs. There are four basic combinations of these positions, and several variants.

The first one is the easiest to dismiss, as it is both the least likely and the least espoused. Hardly anyone is putting forth the position that Bush was convinced Saddam had WMDs but lied about it, and that he really did. So that one goes on the trash heap.

The second possibility is that Bush believed Saddam had not disarmed, but he had. That one is already proven false. We have found literally dozens of artillery shells containing sarin gas, in clear contravention of the disarmament agreements. And since the "shelf life" of Sarin is less than the 12 years that passed from the end of the first Gulf War and the Second, it must have been manufactured and/or imported while Iraq was under sanctions. And those who would dismiss these shells as "not a stockpile" are doing the equivalent of the probation officer dismissing the parolee's possession of a couple joints because "it isn't cocaine or something, just some pot."

The third one is that Bush sincerely believed that Saddam had not disarmed fully, and he had not. That's the one I find the most probable. It's backed up by evidence, too -- we have found some WMDS (the aforementioned artillery shells containing Sarin gas). It also contains the possibility that Saddam had moved his WMDs out of the country during the 18-month buildup to the war -- a tactic he had used before, when he flew most of his Air Force into Iran just prior to the first Gulf War. And there is a difference between being wrong and lying -- lying requires intent. Those people who believed the world was flat weren't lying, they were simply wrong.

The fourth one is that Saddam had truly disarmed, and Bush knew it. That is the most common interpretation of "Bush lied, people died," and it just doesn't stand up. First, we've FOUND a few WMDs. Second, the fact that we've only found a few is, in a rather twisted sense, stronger evidence than stockpiles.

Let's presume for a moment that Bush had, indeed, been convinced that Saddam possessed no WMDs, but pushed the invasion anyway. This fails on closer scrutiny. If Bush was indeed ruthless and unscrupulous enough to lie about this, wouldn't he also have prepared some fake evidence to "uncover" to support his lie? To me, if we had found a stockpile or two of chemical weapons, some biological samples, and maybe even a nuke-in-progress to justify the invasion. The fact that no such things have been found to me fairly shouts that Bush sincerely believed the proof would be found.

And to those who say that Bush wasn't smart enough to prepare the faked evidence, you can't have it both ways. He can't be cunning enough to concoct this scheme, yet too dumb to realize the consequences.

So it's my belief that the Bush administration was sincerely convinced, on good evidence, that Saddam was developing forbidden weapons, and acted in good conscience. Saddam could have prevented the whole war by simply complying with what he had previously agreed to do -- allow inspectors unfettered access. But he thought he could bluff the US and our allies, balance our demands versus the threats to his prestige and standing, and emerge a victor. He came damned close, especially with the billions in bribes being passed around through the Oil For Food fraud, but eventually he failed, Iraq was invaded, he was deposed, and now he sits in a jail cell while his former subjects are voting freely in determining their own future.

And it's nobody's fault but his own.



Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Bush lied, people died:" A look at Iraq and the WMD issue:

» Shock and Blog linked with Analysis of the "Bush lied, people died"mantra

» KelliPundit linked with Bush Lied, People Died: Yada, Yada, Yada

» Idiotic People linked with Anyone that thinks Bush lied on WMD is an idiot.

» The Unrepentant Individual linked with Bush Lied, People Died

» The Blog from the Core linked with Blogworthies LII

Comments (41)

Saddam lied, people died.</... (Below threshold)

Saddam lied, people died.

Very well put Jay...... (Below threshold)

Very well put Jay...
Sad when they have to be hand held and given a tutorial over and over and over again...Friggin blues...I swear...
The bad part is that anyone (including a democrat) can easily determine what constitutes a WMD.
Bush lied people died
A hell of a mantra and one that goes no where.

That wasn't long. It was r... (Below threshold)

That wasn't long. It was relatively short. I can understand your not wanting to elaborate too much. It would have been a novel length post. None of the "Bush lied, people died" group ever bring up any of the issues you do and the myriad of other evidence that he was a threat to more than just the US. Like Salman Pak, Abu Nidal, meetings between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda ... we could go on and on. And still they refute it?

A complete separation from reality. Alarming.

The other Oyster

Furthermore, I think it's a... (Below threshold)

Furthermore, I think it's a testament to their absolute laziness in not reading. It's so much more comfortable to sit on the couch like a toad a be hand fed your news by the talking heads.

~the other Oyster~

It's not a seperation from ... (Below threshold)

It's not a seperation from reality, it's seething, blind hatred of Bush. They are so consumed by their hatred of the man because he won't behave like a liberal, that they can only take one position, that being the one that is absolutely opposite of him. And much to their dismay, this puts them in the kook element of the population.

That's the sad part.


Finally, simply put. I thin... (Below threshold)

Finally, simply put. I think the parole analogy says it best. However some people believe that once a person is paroled they are automatically "cured". Saddam had them, used them and wouldnt prove he got rid of them - fact.

I love the parole officer a... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I love the parole officer analogy.

I think the problem is that the left hates Bush so much that they are way oversimplifying the whole WMD issue. Whether Saddam had disarmed or not, he led the world to believe he still had them, and that is pretty much akin to the robber who uses a fake but real looking gun to rob the convienient store-it doesn't really matter in the eyes of the law, if the gun can't shoot real bullets and isn't dangerous, it only matters that the guy behind the counter thinks it is real.

Great write-up, Jay. I do ... (Below threshold)

Great write-up, Jay. I do have to say, though, that on your "just some pot" analogy, that's exactly what the left thinks (in both situations, in fact). To them, the shells weren't proof of Saddam's intent to possess and use WMDs (and they think a parole caught with some pot should get a pass). It's like they reverse the M and the W and think Saddam should've had Mass Weapons of Destruction, when in reality, chemical and especially biological weapons don't need to be created in large amounts to be effective.

There is another WMD, y'kno... (Below threshold)
Chilly Willy:

There is another WMD, y'know, and Newsweek mentions the piles of it found or spirited away.


Oh, and p.s., before someon... (Below threshold)
Chilly Willy:

Oh, and p.s., before someone thinks that is some sort of a "blood for oil" post, I mean the $$ that *Saddam* had piled up - laundering? financing? enabling? We may never know, but he makes La Cosa Nostra look like slackers.

You were correct when you s... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

You were correct when you said that the "intent" of the statements is the key. Being mistaken versus lying hinges on that very thing.

The whole Democratic line of reasoning on everything Bush does or says is based on two mutually-exclusive premises. First, Bush is the stupidest man on the planet who is fortunate that breathing is an involuntary process. Second, Bush is an evil mastermind that can design elaborately complex plots and coverups. Depending on the topic, he is either one or the other in their minds.

Of course, I just blame it all on Karl Rove. He is an eeeeeeeeevil genius bent on world domination. How else can you explain the seeming contradiction?

"It's so much more comforta... (Below threshold)

"It's so much more comfortable to sit on the couch like a toad a be hand fed your news by the talking heads.

~the other Oyster~"

Actually, it's not news that they're being fed, it's pure propaganda. The talking heads lie, and they just soak it up like it's the gospel. As Bugs Bunny would say "What a bunch of maroons!" Heh.

You've studied this issue w... (Below threshold)

You've studied this issue with Talmudic intensity, Jay, and managed to take hairsplitting down to the sub-atomic level. Which is odd, since you spent all that time and energy just to come back to your starting point.

Let me act as your editor, and boil your thoughtful post down to ten words:

"It's OK if Bush lied; it's OK if foreigners die."

55 million Americans voted FOR telling the truth and AGAINST murdering civilians. Unfortunately we are not in the majority.

The Left needs a new man... (Below threshold)

The Left needs a new mantra; some suggestions:

..."Kerry tried, we're fried."

or, maybe...

..."We lie, we cry, wonder why."

..."Dean yelled, we fell."

..."DNC, terrorists and us."

..."Dictators motivate, we celebrate."

It's interesting now hearing Democrats try to tweak their rationality that considers the U.S. and U.S. Military as "invading forces" try to act patriotic and actually concerned for other Americans, much less about democracy in Iraq. I am finding that Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Boxer and all just cannot keep their stories straight, but they're sure trying.

Well Don since you decided ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Well Don since you decided to nit pick with Jay, how bout I nit pick with the standard dem inconsistency that while Bush is the ultimate moron he somehow managed to not only lie about WMD in Iraq, but got the UN, France, Germany, Russia, Jordan, China and even the Clinton adminstration before he ever won the office in on the lie. Kind of hard to be that brilliant and a moron at the same time.

Thank you for putting it al... (Below threshold)

Thank you for putting it all together so simply. I, like many of the above, like the parole analogy. I think it's high time the moonbats pulled their heads out of their collective asses and come to grips with the truth: Bush was right, Sadaam was bad.

"55 million Americans voted... (Below threshold)

"55 million Americans voted FOR telling the truth and AGAINST murdering civilians. Unfortunately we are not in the majority."

But you support those MURDEROUS troops don't you Don?

Fucking asshat. You lost, now shut up.

Don, if you're my editor, e... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Don, if you're my editor, either you're fired or I quit. "Lie" is a very specific term -- it's the deliberate utterance of a falsehood. It presumes intent to mislead. I thought I spelled it out when I drew distinctions between "wrong" and "lying," but apparently you missed that part of it. Cite evidence of intention of misleading, or shut the hell up.

But if you want to boil down my piece to a few, easily-managed words, try this: "Don't try to bluff a Texan."

I sincerely hope you can pry your head out of your ass long enough to read this, Don.


(Part of the 60 million who thought Don's 55 million people were, largely, delusional idiots and babbling morons who could barely grasp any concept beyond "Bush BAD!!!!")

SilverBubble, I didn't see ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

SilverBubble, I didn't see your piece before I posted my own response to Don. My apologies for inadvertently stealing your "head out of your ass" motif -- it was accidental.

LJD, I wouldn't have dropped the f-bomb on Don like you did, but I agree with your sentiment exactly. And I'm ashamed you picked up on the "murder" bit that I missed -- it's a perfect instance of someone revealing more about themselves than they intended. I doff my hat to you.


Don, did Bush lie when he s... (Below threshold)
Drew - Dallas, TX:

Don, did Bush lie when he said on 9/20/2001 regarding terrorism - "either you are with us, or you are against us"?

Of these voters that you speak of, few actually voted for Kerry that I know of.

Also, don't forget that lit... (Below threshold)

Also, don't forget that little story, basically entirely tanked by the media, about Qadaffi rolling over on his entire Nuclear enterprise in the wake of the Iraq war. Do we think that would have happened in a vacuum? Of course not - it was a combination of intercepting a shipment of tech from Iraq to Libya, the 'decapitation strike' which kicked off the Iraq war, and the memories of what happened the last time Qadaffi's hand was caught in the cookie jar. The Brits did a good job at carrot-and-sticking it to the Libyans to get what we got.

Frankly, the Iraq war leads to just the sort of international diplomacy that can end up working: "do the right thing, all the way, or we'll let those crazy Americans kill you and convert your country to a democracy". If most of Western Europe weren't caught in the clutches of liberal cultural psychosis and their leaders weren't more interesting in plying power politics within the EU, they would have recognized this by now, and would have been playing ball all this time.

The way we've defined our t... (Below threshold)

The way we've defined our terms is a big piece of the 'findings' also. (That is: the goal posts moved off the field.)

Take nuclear first:
What did end up finding was scientists, documentation, intent, and tons of yellowcake. The primary missing piece was centrifuges. The consensus seems to be SH was aware of how difficult it would be to keep a thousand centrifuges hidden while they processed the uranium from the yellowcake into enriched uranium. So he was waiting for sanctions to lift before restarting that.

Take chemical second:
The chemical weapons discussion is very confused. Right around 1991 SH's 'tech' had gotten to the point that they were moving towards 'binary weapons'. Take sarin and cyclosarin. They both have a short shelf life and the two precursors are substantially safer to handle. But neither of the precursors is classed as a weapon. Home Depot has one, Walgreens has the other and making the active weapon doesn't take 45 minutes of mixing. A delivery method (artillery shells with a membrane to keep A & B separate) aren't apparently worrisome - because the ones we found were all empty. So now what? It's _both_ 'there are no stockpiles' _and_ 'it can be launched in 45 minutes'! But where we've placed the goalposts, the only 'success' would be finding 'premixed' CW by the ton and/or a warehouse of filled shells. Since (at least for sarin) it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to _store_ the chemicals mixed, it is like looking for polliwogs on Everest.

On to biologicals:
I'm a chemical engineer, and my knowledge of bioweapons is limited to home brew beer. The key from that is that one very small packet of yeast can turn out a LOT of beer. But the alleged 'mobile bioweapons labs' got my attention - because of the cover story. The cover story is that this is a 'hydrogen weather balloon filling station'. That's the official finding of the ISG in a comment something like this 'Iraqis insist that this trailer is a hydrogen production facility, we analyzed swabs all over this trailer and found no bio-agents, and someone pointed out a conceivable method of making hydrogen from this equipment, so that's our ruling.'

I requested and received full sized photos of from the author of this article. There's a lot of equipment that is 100% recognizable in these photographs. There's a rack of high pressure gas tanks all using one common line with one common pressure gauge(1). There's one large reaction vessel with no facility for heating(2). There's a row of 'taps' - a line of 4+ sets of copper tubing hocked up to nothing, but clearly aligned to hook up to a row of bottles or tanks(3). There's a (roughly) 2 foot by 2 foot box with a couple of lines going in and a couple going out - this is a cryogenic cooling unit(4). There's a panel of dials, lights, and switches(5). Farther towards the 'bow' of the trailer there's a motor-pump-tank combo that can be either a compressor or a vaccuum system(6). Then there's _one_ piece I can't pigeonhole but seems to be a second cryogenic box at the very front of the trailer(7).

Well, let's assume it is for making hydrogen. How is it supposed to be used?
The number one method of making hydrogen (pricewise) is called 'Steam Reforming'. You take methane (natural gas) and burn it with air in a furnace with water spraying in. You get H2 and CO2 (and nitrous compounds) out, then you spend the rest of your time purifying. You need a tank of water, a large refractory area (temp will exceed 1500 F), propane-tank-like tanks of methane, a radiator or two, and a cooling tower. On a trailer scale you can't have a cooling tower - you'd have an industrial air conditioner or three.

The number one _easiest_ method of making hydrogen is electrolysis. Energy intensive - but easy as cake. It's a typical demonstration experiment. Salt water + two electrodes with a decent voltage difference -> pretty pure hydrogen at one electrode, and pretty pure oxygen at the other. In the lab you catch the gases in inverted cups. If I was equipping a trailer to do this, it would be crammed with portable generators, a couple 50-lb bags of salt, tanks of water, a tank for the salt + electrodes, and a pump to pressurize the balloons.

A higher tech version of the electrolysis method would be reversing a PEM fuel cell. Portable generators, water reservoir, pressure pumps, and a low-pressure tank designed for easy access filled with membranes.

None of those line up with the equipment we've _got_. If I personally was asked to equip a trailer for filling weather balloons, straightforward electrolysis would be my choice. Not only is it simple conceptually, but it is something sane for a mobile operation. Electrolysis is the method used at the hydrogen filling stations in California for instance - simple & safe(r).

If (on the other hand) _I_ were told to make hydrogen with this equipment, I probably _could_. A fermentation vat after a search for a yeast that evolves hydrogen seems most likely (which is what the article implies). There's a variety of such anaerobic yeasts. But the words 'farking slow' comes to mind. Beer, producing baker's yeast, growing algae... all of those things should be easy if the equipment is as described. I can't think of a compound I'd want to grow in a _mobile_ lab though, unless mobility was crucial for some reason since no better method existed.

If you want to test electrolysis for yourself, note that you are making HYDROGEN and OXYGEN. A little bit of static makes that an explosion. Wear goggles, do it outside, don't use glass, don't collect more than half a liter or so. A 6V lantern battery is plenty to show the how easy the effect is. More batteries helps. Mimicing the hydrogen output from a gas-powered industrial electricity generator requires... pretty much an actual generator. And perhaps a launch license. (You want platinum electrodes optimally - but a bundle of fine steel wool works ok) My Prius (which has a high amperage battery) was enough to bring a (outside) tub of water to the appearance of a 'roiling boil'. Don't hook it up to anything you aren't confident about. AC won't work.

IOW: I don't trust WND for my reporting. But if the _pictures_ are accurate, I _highly_ doubt that "weather balloons" was the primary point of the pictured equipment.

'55 million Americans voted... (Below threshold)
Jack Tanner:

'55 million Americans voted FOR telling the truth and AGAINST murdering civilians.'

Was that after they voted against it? Or were they voting for the authorization that they never would have used because it was the wrong time? Or were they voting against GWI? What were they voting for?

Excellent article Jay. But... (Below threshold)

Excellent article Jay. But I'm afraid no one will ever change their minds at this point. Its like impeachment, no matter how well you explain what impeachment is all about the Democrats are like the dog in the Far Side cartoon. All they hear is Blah Blah Blah it's all about sex Blah Blah Blah.

Now its Blah Blah Blah No WMD Blah Blah Blah.

They will either ignore your arguments or just pick and choose what words they want to hear just like Don. In the end they will just call you an evil lying Nazi and claim victory for their insightful rebuttal.

Ted Kennedy Sept 27, 2002 -... (Below threshold)

Ted Kennedy Sept 27, 2002 - "I do not accept the idea that trying other alternatives is either futile or perilous - that the risks of waiting are greater than the risks of war. Indeed, in launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing -- weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists."

"Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. Despite advances in protecting our troops, we do not yet have the capability to safeguard all of them."

I guess Teddy lied about Saddam having WMD too.

"Bush Lied, People Died" is... (Below threshold)

"Bush Lied, People Died" is such a perfect mantra that Bush-haters will never give it up regardless of the evidence. It concurrently attacks both character and competence, Bush's greatest strengths.

The analysis overlooks one important element. I hope no one thinks that a President personally investigates what weapons a potential opponent has in his arsenal. President Bush, like every executive, relied on his staff, America's intelligence services, to provide that information. The CIA and every other intelligence service in the world got it wrong. They set an expectation that there were stockpiles of WMD, and were unable to detect the alternatives the Iraqi's might use for just-in-time manufacturing or their deployment into Iran or Syria. Relying on incorrect information provided by a credible source might produce incorrect statements and decisions, but it's not lying. Like all good executives, Bush has found his staff unreliable, and is replacing it.

Congress lied, people died.... (Below threshold)

Congress lied, people died...


That's the Iraq war bill that passed congress and the senate of the United States. Read it all, it destroys all the Bush lied crowd. One paragraph of it makes it very clear who said that Iraq had WMD:

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

"Congress concluded" is pretty clear to me, if they didn't do their homework before they signed off on this bill that's their problem, congress orders the president what to do later in the bill:

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

They even told him to be prompt about it. This isn't rocket science, the lefties have the same access to this information that I do. I urge everyone to read the whole thing, either congress didn't do it's job or they pulled support for the law they passed when election year rolled around. If they are going to be passing these laws they should at least go to the trouble of reading them.

Wow Jay, maybe these Dems ... (Below threshold)
Ol' BC:

Wow Jay, maybe these Dems who whine about no WMD's should talk to the Kurds and Shiites. They may invite them over to see the mass graves.
The Dems seem to forget that Saddam USED them on his own people. Thousands and thousands of dead seems like pretty good proof. What ever happened to the Dems cry for "human rights" in our foreign policy? Reminds me of their candidate-for it then against it.

Teddy clowned, Maryjo drown... (Below threshold)

Teddy clowned, Maryjo drowned.

Jay:I believed tha... (Below threshold)


I believed that Dubya LIED and got thousands of people killed. You believe that Dubya SCREWED UP and got thousands of people killed.

What I don't understand is why you're so willing to forgive and forget. Even if he just made an honest mistake, that level of incompetence should have gotten his ass fired.

Jack, Drew, and the rest of the know-nothings can throw all the metaphorical feces they want, but it won't change the fact that the Bush regime was wrong about the war, and is getting a lot of people killed while letting Al Qaeda get away.

Clearly you're OK with that. I'm not.

You right-ish types are ama... (Below threshold)
Johnny Truthseeker:

You right-ish types are amazing! The Kurds were gassed back in the 80's--Don Rummy went over there AFTER that happened and shook Saddams hand! We were told they were minutes away from a launch, we're going to get hit, mushroom cloud--NONE OF THAT WAS TRUE!!! Where do you get your info you PUPPETS?!?! WMD, Evil, Dictator, Gassed his peeps....NO NO--NOW the reason is an ELECTION!! An election means nothing without, let's see..an economy, security, an infrastructure...and who destroyed all that? Guess. Electricity is NOW BELOW PRE-WAR LEVELS!

We shouldn't have gone in, U.N. rez got the inspector's in and kept the guy in check--instead we have 1500 GI's dead, 10,000+ GI's wounded, 100,000+ dead civi's!! For what?? An election? Go check the rhetoric when we went in you FOOLS!!! What's that you say? War is hell? F.U. Moron.

Jay I have great respect fo... (Below threshold)

Jay I have great respect for your writing and found your analysis interesting but lacking, one the inspectors were there when Bush said they weren't, two you completely overlooked the second part of the WMD's message that Iraq was an emminant threat to the security of The United States, they were not and third that they had close ties with Al Quiada, which they did not. Both Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice even said so in earlier speeches until they were ordered to change the rhetoric. How about tackling the people are being tortured at the hands of U.S. troops that are going around now? I suppose Bush didn't know about that either.

Don, Johnny and Patrick:</p... (Below threshold)

Don, Johnny and Patrick:

1) There is verifiable proof that Iraqi officials were meeting with al Qaeda operatives. The only argument against it is that we don't have proof of what they talked about. I doubt they were just having a cuppa amongst friends.

2) The Taliban in Afghanistan had no WMD capability at all and they hit us. So whether or not Iraq has/had them is moot.

And especially, Johnny, you ignorant slut. An economy, security, and rebuilding an infrastructure isn't possible WITHOUT an election. Now this is all only assuming that what you said is true; that the Iraqis had security to start with. Security from what? Certainly not their dictator. And infrastructure? Ha! SH had no problem yanking that out from under anyone's feet who went against him. Turning off the electricity to dissenters was his favorite MO. And if that didn't work, death was always an option.

Ahh, nevermind ..... I don't know why I waste my time with people like you.

the other Oyster

Oyster, I don't mean to pis... (Below threshold)

Oyster, I don't mean to piss in your Post Toasties, but that "verifiable proof" is just more of the same lies---from the same people who have consistantly lied to you about the war, the economy, Social Security, the evironment, ect.

You've been sold a bill of good by the folks who are picking your pocket---the gov't of the United States.

Oyster-Why didn't we... (Below threshold)
Johnny Truthseeker:

Why didn't we have an election on DAY 2 of the War if that's what we needed to have security? That's your logic...do you see how arse backwards it is? YES, OSAMA BIN F'IN LADIN HIT US!!! THANK YOU. He was in AFGHANISTAN!! YES!! Where are we at war now and oh yea, did we get him? Conflate them all you want, those of us with an I.Q. over 80 can separate the issues. WMD. WMD. NUCLEAR---sorry, Nu-cu-lar WMD...that was the ticket bro. Not elections, not electricity, not the Kurds in the 80's getting gassed, not HIS torture chambers, not FREEDOM, not LIBERTY, NU-CU-LAR WEAPONS!! Psssst, there weren't any. Sorry for stating facts, I know they cloud the issues and talking points. War AND blogs are hell.

Don, you've spouted your cr... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Don, you've spouted your crap over and over and over. Quite frankly, it's getting tiresome. Cite a few concrete examples -- with citations, mind you -- or shut the hell up. Personally, I live in New Hampshire, and I got my fill of empty slams of Bush a year ago, during the primary.

If you want to discuss "bills of goods" people have been sold, then you ought to discuss whoever was in charge of your education -- one doesn't prove a point by getting more and more shrill and tossing out more and more accusations. One proves one's point by showing PROOF. In fact, quite often the opposite occurs -- the hissier you get, the less credibility people give you.

Put up or shut up, Don. It's that simple.

And the same holds for you, Johnny Clueseeker.


Good one "J". You managed t... (Below threshold)
Johnny Truthseeker:

Good one "J". You managed to avoid every point I made disputing your weak position, by claiming you had a better education---doesn't make sense, but it is humorous.

What is it exactly that you want proof or examples of by the way? I'd be happy to educate you.

What Mr. Truthseeker said..... (Below threshold)

What Mr. Truthseeker said...

The problem with your parol... (Below threshold)

The problem with your parole officer analogy is that there were UN inspectors in Iraq which we (the United States) had withdrawn because we could not guarantee their safety as we were about to invade. The "felon" was being "drug tested" as it were. We convicted him and executed him before the test results came back.

Johnny Truthseeker, you hav... (Below threshold)

Johnny Truthseeker, you have been blinded by the brainwashing machine of the system you are a product of. Do you evaluate data and facts on your own, or do you absorb half-truths and snippets of information taken out of context (as Michael Moore's masterpiece of Nazi-style propaganda misinformation)? Look at the big picture of what was going on in Iraq over the last 25 years, don't depend on one isolated lack of evidence. SH has acted like an out-of-control juvenile for too long, he needed to be spanked, but the UN method was too weak. In fact, every worldwide effort on the part of the UN since Korea to force a military solution has resulted in stalemate or failure, they don't have the stomach to take appropriate action. When one is dealing with individuals (who don't care about the welfare of anyone else but themselves) dedicated to your personal destruction by any means one must act decisively, not in half-measures, because in that moment of indecision (or debate) the bad guys will take advantage and strike at your most vulnerable moment. You need to go live in a Muslim ruled country for a while, it's an eye-opener.

While your analysis has a f... (Below threshold)

While your analysis has a few good points, it suffers from three inherent weaknesses:

1) Your complete lack of documentation or evidence for your technical data (ie: half-life of sarin gas

2) You use the term "Bush" to mean two different things, but end up using them interchangably. This confuses the reader and probably indicates a (very common) confusion on your part as well.

One "Bush" is a particular individual currently employed as the public face of the Exectuve branch. The other "Bush" is a large group of men and women who write and implement policy, consisting of Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and many more.

For example, you state:

And to those who say that Bush wasn't smart enough to prepare the faked evidence, you can't have it both ways. He can't be cunning enough to concoct this scheme, yet too dumb to realize the consequences.

Wrong! The Bush regime, while they are a mercenary group of liars and theives, are very, very smart. Dubya, on the other hand, is as dumb as a box of hammers.

3) You use the conjuction "OR" but not the conjuction "AND." Your major premise is that the Hussein regime was evil OR the Bush regime lied to the American people. A better premise would be that the Hussein regime was evil AND the Bush regime lied to the American people. There is nothing contradictory in that last statement---and the evidence has certainly born it out.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy