Just saying this is totally immaterial. I’ve heard the “Democrats believed it too” argument over and over, and it is total bullshit.
Hardly. The inspections were not very far along. The threat of force to encourage Saddam to allow the inspections was perfectly appropriate, IMO, and Bush actually did a good job in setting the stage to allow them to go forward. Reacting to the lack of results with an invasion was not. What do you suppose the vote would have been if one of the items of the motion was that the failure to find WMDs was cause for an invasion?
Voyager, you and I recall the situation differently. I am a Democrat and a good many of us, if not the majority, believed that Saddam probably did have WMD – especially biological weapons.
Our fears were more easily manipulated during that time period. Colin Powell went before the U.N. and showed us where weapons were being stored. This was a man we trusted. We had no way of knowing then that he had his doubts.
Many of us were against the war in spite of believing that there really were WMD.
A difference should be drawn between “Saddam had WMDs” (which means any quantity greater than zero is acceptable) and “Saddam had enough WMDs to pose a significant threat to the United States.” It is possible to believe in the former but not the latter; yet the latter was what was touted by the Bush Administration in the rush for war.
The issue is that the OP is attempted to imply that the Democrats who believed the WMDs existed were just as wrong as the President was and that it’s therefore unfair to condemn the President without condemning the Democrats as well.
Bus as I said before this is a straw man argument. Congress did not have the opportunity to directly review and evaluate the evidence of Iraqi weapon production. It has to rely on second hand reports from other sources. The President on the other hand has direct access to American intelligence reports - he had the ability to directly confirm or rebut the belief that Iraq was manufacturing WMDs. He said he had done this and told Congress this. The Congressmen, Democrat and Republican, who believed Saddam had WMDs did so because George Bush said it was true. Their decision was based on their trust of the President not on any direct knowlege of the situation.
The OP then went on to a semantic discussion on what a “lie” is. This is the same kind of thing President Clinton was reviled for when he attempted simular evasions. The facts are President Bush was wrong - even he has since stated that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time he said there were. So the two options are that he was lying or he was incompetent. Admittedly, we don’t yet know which of these is true.
One supposes that most leading Democrats thought that Saddam had WMD. But this is irrelevant. The point is the Democrats weren’t sending people off to die to find out. There’s a difference between believing that Long John Silver buried his treasure under the Senate floor and actually digging for it.
To answer the OP’s question directly, for a refreshing change, on yesterday’s “Meet the Press”, Tim Russert asked Charles Schumer (D-NY) if he regretted voting in favor of the war. Shumer replied a straight “No”, and even went so far as to link his continued confidence in his vote to the fight against terror. I also seem to recall that he believed in the existence of WMDs.
Wow–this is a fairly restrictive definition of a lie. It’s also a little garbled, so let me see if I understand it. For you, a lie must:
Consist of an untruth
Purposely told to someone else
With the intention of bringing harm to the person to whom the lie is told.
I agree with the first two criteria, but the third one is totally new to me. If I falsely say, “Yes, your Honor, I saw Mr. Smith stab the defendant!” I am trying to bring harm to Mr. Smith, not to the judge; as such, it doesn’t meet your third criterion. Would you seriously argue that this isn’t a lie?
Would you argue that the concept of a white lie is incoherent–that saying, “My, this cake is delicious!” is not a lie, since nobody is harmed by it?*
And which ended up causing harm to people (albeit not necessarily to his audience).
And I think that easily satisfies any reasonable criteria for a lie.
Even if we go with your definition, the fact that his audience is now seeing their children be killed overseas and their national debt skyrocket to pay for the war probably satisfies your “harm” criterion. I just don’t think that’s a reasonable one.
Daniel
Anxiously awaiting the pedants who will argue that the baker will end up harming other people by not hearing good criticism of his baking skills and foisting inedible cakes on future victims: please please please correct me on this point!
Hell, some leading Republicans didn’t think it until it suited the Admin.
Pre 9/11, Powell and Rice said that Iraq wasn’t a risk. From everything I’ve read and watched over the last years I’m convinced that the only thing that changed was the politics of the situation and not the facts on the ground.
A small video of them making the statements is included in the link.
The ex-British foreign secretary Robin Cook resigned over the Iraq war. He couldn’t be part of a government that was pushing for the Iraq War. After all the information that he would have saw as part of his job he had this to say
The short answer to the question in the title is “pretty much all of them”. Which was one of their problems in the 2004 elections.
It is pretty difficult to sell the position “it’s not a lie when I say it, or Hilary says it, or Kerry says it, or Edwards says it. It’s only a lie when Bush says it.” And saying “it only counts when you take military action in Iraq based on it” is an even tougher sell, because it leads back into Clinton’s major problems with the truth, and the unfortunate tendency of Democrats to buy it from Clinton and angrily reject it from Bush.
Which is why so many responses to this thread are attempts to change the subject.
Who, exactly, is selling that position? I’ve laid out specific statements by Bush that I consider to be lies, with the reasoning behind them. None of them are “Bush said Iraq has WMDs, and they don’t, ergo, lielielie!” If you think that Clinton et al told a lie, put up or shut up: give us the specific statements they made that were lies, along with your proof that their statements were falsehoods told wtih th eintent of deceiving the public.
Nobody died when Clinton fired off missiles at Iraq? Wow, Clinton was even more militarily incompetent than I thought.
Actually, in Shodanesque logic, we have this:
[ul][li]Clinton stated publicly that Saddam had WMD.[/li][li]He fired off missiles at Iraq, killing Iraqis. [/li][li]However, Clinton was lying (as usual). He did not fire off the missiles because he gave a tinker’s dam about WMD. He was trying to avoid impeachment. [/li][li]It didn’t work, he was impeached anyway. Therefore, there was no point in his continuing to kill Iraqis as a way of dealing with his political problems, so he stopped. [/ul]In other words, Clinton’s motive in bombing Iraq was venal and dishonest in a way that Bush’s is not. Clinton’s actions were entirely self-serving, and not based on any real concern for nuclear proliferation or other WMD. [/li]
Bush’s actions were based on a sincere belief in the threat posed by Iraq; Clinton’s on a sincere belief that he could use the powers of his office to avoid the consequence of his actions.
We’ve gone over this before, and it never does any good. Too many Dopers reflexively support Democrats and reflexively oppose Republicans, no matter what the circumstances.
:shrugs:
If Clinton had invaded, y’all would be arguing just as hard in favor of the Iraq war as you are now opposing it. Purely a question of whose ox is being gored.
While there is no question that people like you exist on both sides I highly doubt the majority of people are. In fact I’ve seen a lot of supporters change their minds as more info has filtered out over the years.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Actually, in Shodanesque logic, we have this:
[list][li]Clinton stated publicly that Saddam had WMD.[/li][li]He fired off missiles at Iraq, killing Iraqis. [/li][li]However, Clinton was lying (as usual). He did not fire off the missiles because he gave a tinker’s dam about WMD. He was trying to avoid impeachment. [/li][/QUOTE]
And your proof of this is…?
I’ve harshly criticized Clinton for his missile attacks on Sudan, and I would love to see him brought up on criminal charges for them. However, I hold presidents to a higher standard in this regard than most folks do; by my standards, every president since Reagan (and probably before) would be serving life sentences.
Again, we’ve offered specific cases in which Bush lied, in the linked thread. You’ve not offered a specific case in which Clinton lied. The only double standard around here is yours, in which you require unattainable evidence to accuse Bush but are willing to convict Clinton on a hunch.
Once more, if you’ve got this evidence of a Clinton lie about military matters that is analogous to Bush’s referenced lies, put up or shut up. Bloviating generalities are unhelpful.
I want to add that I harshly criticized him for his early missile-killings of eight Iraq civilians, in revenge for rumors about an assassination attempt against Bush the Elder. These, I believe, ought to qualify him for a murder trial. Don’t be telling me that I would have supported a Clinton invasion: not all of us are unthinking partisans, Shodan.
Immaterial to what? The OP is not asking how many Democrats wanted to go to war with Iraq, he asked how many thought Saddam had WMDs. Some of you guys just can’t distinguish the difference. Hell, I thought Saddam had WMDs, and I didn’t want to go to war.
Here’s one for you. How many Democrats who voted for that resolution have come out and said they wish they hadn’t? During the camapaign, if fact, Kerry said he’d do it over again even knowing what he knew now.
You’re right that folks aren’t really discussing the question he asked. That question was answered pretty thoroughly in posts 5 and 9, and I’m not seeing that anyone disagrees with those answers. However, this is Great Debates, and it’s legitimate to debate whether the OP is asking the most relevant question here. I believe that he is not.
And I agree that many Democrats are afraid to admit they made a mistake. They don’t want to look weak or gullible, and so they won’t give mea culpas*. This is disgraceful. Obviously, some of them do believe that the war was the right thing; but I have trouble believing that they’re all taking a principled stand.
