# An epiphany regarding a liberal paradox... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 22, 2004, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586 "2004-06-22T05:12:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/21 "2004-06-22T06:32:46Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > No, the reason people are complaining about it is because Dubya said he KNEW there were WMD, and THAT was his main reason. That “Oh yeah, they have them, we just can’t tell you our sources, or show you are evidence.” > > Now, we find out we’ve been lied to. THAT doesn’t bother you? My take on it, not that I expect you to agree, is that Bush had every reason to believe Iraq had them, thus his claim of “knowing” it, if indeed he ever put it that way. His information may have been inaccurate; Hussein may have moved his WMD and laboratories to another country; or he may have hidden them in Iraq so well they haven’t been found. Who knows? The point is, after 12 years of hide-and-seek with the inspectors and the overwhelming belief of Iraq’s neighbors, Europe, the U.N., the U.S. intelligence agencies (and even Clinton himself, apparently) all believed Iraq to posess WMD, and the consequences of waiting and having them fall into the hands of terrorists was simply too great to risk. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/22 "2004-06-22T06:39:58Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > the U.N. thought he had WMD; Don’t you think the very fact that the U.N. wanted to continue inspecting for WMDs is pretty solid evidence that they _weren’t_ sure of their existence? If the U.N. thought it was a slam dunk, and thought invading Iraq was the right decision at the time, why wasn’t Bush able to get his resolution passed? > [@](#): > > including a period of time when there were none because he kicked them all out and was allowed to get away with it Why do you guys always want to go back in time to justify the war? In the _current_ situation, Saddam did NOT kick out the inspectors. In fact, Bush kicked them out so he could start the invasion. The criticism of Bush is that he acted unilaterally and rashly, without consensus and without sufficient evidence. The fact that no WMDs have been found is just _more evidence_ that such is the case. It doesn’t _make_ the case, it just makes it all the more obvious. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/23 "2004-06-22T06:54:05Z")
Well, golly gee, **Starv** , if he had so much credible evidence, where did it all go? By “credible evidence”, do you mean that dog and pony show that Colin Powell presented to the UN? I remember that, do you? Then you remember that not one…_not one!_…of the accusations leveled panned out. And while we were all in a dither about Saddam’s atomic anthrax invisible pink unicorns of Death…our very bestest buddy, good ol’ true blue Pakistan, is conducting a nuclear Tupperware party! Death on a stick, get 'em while they’re hot! War is the method by which the stupid and cruel visit suffering on the innocent. Any nation with any claim to a shred of human decency will resort to it only under the most clear and dreadful circumstances. War doesn’t grade on the curve, there is no “gentelmens C”, no Special Olympics where you earn an “attaboy!” for trying your hardest. Thousands of people are needlessly and pointlessly dead. There are no more obscene words in the language. We have squandered lives, money, and prestige and all we have earned is the contempt of reasonable people world wide. “Credible evidence”, my ass! You can’t polish a turd, Beavis. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/24 "2004-06-22T07:01:40Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > … hat many of the sites identified by the Bushies as weapons sites from satellite images turned out to be chicken farms. Those were _anthrax_ chickens! Being bred and trained for intercontinental flight! Chickens with albatross wingspans and capable of catapult-assisted takeoff. Then America would learn to cringe, looking to the skies and dreading the _Buck-buck-buddy-YAWK_ of Doom! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/25 "2004-06-22T07:02:07Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > My take on it, not that I expect you to agree, is that Bush had every reason to believe Iraq had them, thus his claim of “knowing” it, if indeed he ever put it that way. He did put it that way and he was lying. He did NOT have “every reason” to think that. He was told alll along that the intel was caveated. > [@](#): > > His information may have been inaccurate; Hussein may have moved his WMD and laboratories to another country; or he may have hidden them in Iraq so well they haven’t been found. Who knows? The Kay report says that there is no evidence that weapons were either moved or hidden. After more than a year of investigation an questioning of key Iraqi figures (including Saddam hmself), we have still turned up no trace of labs or stockpiles or even info about anything being moved. It now sounds like Saddam had been running a bluff and that no programs even existed. > [@](#): > > The point is, after 12 years of hide-and-seek with the inspectors and the overwhelming belief of Iraq’s neighbors, Europe, the U.N., the U.S. intelligence agencies (and even Clinton himself, apparently) all believed Iraq to posess WMD, and the consequences of waiting and having them fall into the hands of terrorists was simply too great to risk. The pointb you seem to be missing is that GWB is not the sheriff. he does not get to make decisions about who he can invade or who he can’t without UN approval. He KNEW that the intel about WMDs was sketchy. He knew the imminent threat" was bullshit. Don’t make excuses for him. Your OP has been answered anyway. The question of who was _right_ about the justifications is really beside the point of whether war protestors have contradicted themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/26 "2004-06-22T07:09:47Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How about actually _proving_ that Iraq had a fucking WMD? Not suspecting it, not hoping for it, not wishing it, actually _proving_ it as a certainty. Ah…here we are at the point when Diogenes cames flying in spouting invectives in all directions like a loose cannon and making very little if any sense. To wit: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You are incorrect on the law. Cite? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Un ispectors were in country searching before the invasion and were pulled out by Bush because they couldn’t find anything. Cite? Prove they were pulled out because they couldn’t find anything. They were pulled out because Bush felt he could no longer risk playing games with Hussein over whether he did or didn’t. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The rest of your above paragraph is legally meaningless. Again, cite? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It doesn’t mean jackshit what anybody _thought_, you would actually have to prove it. It means “jackshit” to me, as you so eloquently put it, and it would to you, too, if your town got vaporized because Bush turned a blind eye to the potential alliance between Hussein and al-Qaeda and failed to stop an al-Qaeda attack using weapons obtained from Iraq. Quote: “This doesn’t even make sense. We didn’t storm randomly into Iraq;” > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The fuck we didn’t. Do you even know the definition of “random?” (Man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.) > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You are completely wrong on the law. No warrant = illegal search. Period. No exceptions. I see. And explain please, how **Blalron** ’s (flawed, in my opinion) analogy has come to be an absolute in this discussion. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In the case of Iraq we’re talking about a “crackhouse” which last had crack 12 years ago (crack which it bought from the cops, btw) and had shown no sign of running any more “crack” business for years. The fucking pigs busted in without a warrant and they didn’t find any rocks. Even if they had found the rocks, they still had no right to bust in without a warrant (and a “warrant” in this analogy means the authorization of the UN). This is silly. You have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever when or where Iraq last had WMD. You have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever what it may have been doing to develop them. In short, you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever! I would put my analogy regarding this so-called crack house (or “crackhouse” as you put it, but then by the tone of most of your posts, I guess you’d know) up against yours to any reasonable person any day. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The US is not even really the cops. The UN is the cops. If so, they’re impotent cops that failed to act for 12 years and after resolution after resolution, and if you think I want the fate of my city in the hands of a self-serving cowardly global organization who won’t have to pay the price in lives and destruction if it’s proven to be wrong, you are sorely mistaken. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Now, you can disagree with all that. I really don’t care (even though you’re wrong), but in your OP you asked if finding WMDs would alter us “liberals’” position on whether the war was justified. The answer is no, and there is no contradiction. There were _two_ wrongs committed by Bushco with this war. One was that he invaded without proving his case, the other is that he _lied_ about his case. Cite? Prove he _lied_. As usual, you are simply stating your own prejudiced take on what he had every reason to believe was true (as I’ve described at least a couple of times now…remember, Europe; the U.N; Iraq’s neighbors; our intelligence agencies, etc.?) as a lie. Your opinion does not equal fact. This is something you continually seem to be unaware of in your posts all over these forums. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > …\*!BOTH of those wrongs will still hold true even if he stumbls on some WMDs tomorrow. He STILL wouldn’t have proved his case before the ar and he STILL would have lied about the certainity of his case. ::yawns:: Cite? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > He said, for instance, that he knew right where these WMDs were located. Was that the truth? I don’t know…and neither do you. It does seem to me that they may have been moved, or he could have been mistaken for any number of reasons. Neither constitues a lie. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > At least one recent report says that many of the sites identified by the Bushies as weapons sites from satellite images turned out to be chicken farms. What…Bush himself analyzes satellite imagery? And didn’t a previous president, having pretty much the same intelligence gathering resources as Bush, bomb an aspirin factory or something like that? Did you come on here railing about him lying about what was there then? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/27 "2004-06-22T07:18:19Z")
From where I’m sitting, the anti-war protesters have been proven correct, Bush has been caught lying about the reasons to invade Iraq, and **Starving Artist** is apparently in dire need of a few square meals. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Cite? Prove he lied. “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” –George W. Bush, September 12, 2002 “I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.” –George W. Bush, May 6, 2003 “But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” –George W. Bush Interview with TVP Poland, 5/30/2003 All of these statements have, needless to say, been proven false. Yeah, I know, I know, you want to split hairs over whether or not Bush lied, or was simply misled by others. Putting aside the simple matrer that Bush _did_ lie (meaning he made statements with intent to deceive), that means the President of the United States is either a liar or an idiot. Do you _really_ want to ally yourself with such a character? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/28 "2004-06-22T07:21:16Z")
Another thing that somehow never seems to get mentioned around here is, if Hussein was so innocent, and he knew U.S. patience was running out given our concerns about WMD being used in terrorist attacks, why didn’t he just open up completely and say, “Sure, come on in. I have nothing to hide, as I told you. Look wherever you want,” followed by complete and open cooperation all the way down the line. If anyone was in the position to avoid this war, it was Hussein. Why is he being given a pass? And did not GWB give Hussein one last chance to bail. He informed him he had 48 hours to leave and avoid war. Hussein demurred. This 48 hours could have been much better spent springing a surprise attack, as opposed to giving Hussein and his henchmen even more time to prepare. This was very disadvantageous to us militarily as it gave him advance knowledge of when the attack would occur and allowed him to make preparations which undoubtedly cost additional U.S. lives. I’m sure GWB wanted to avoid war (and just for the record, I don’t really expect many here to agree) and felt the risk was worth it in the hope Hussein would come to his senses and leave to live out his life in asylum somewhere. But that didn’t happen, and here we are with all of you claiming Bush was just faunching at the bit to lie to us and send young men and women off to die just because he wanted to be a cowboy. Sheesh! ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/29 "2004-06-22T07:25:44Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > …which gives the impression that they believe the war would have been justified if WMD had indeed been found… This impression you’ve formed may well be the crux of your biscuit. While I’m not one to heedlessly “slam Bush and his administration vis-a-vis the fact that no significant WMD have been found in Iraq,” I thought that I may emit a spark to cast a brief light on the subject. I’m as surprised as many at the relative dearth of WMD finds in Iraq. I objected to the invasion for several reasons. The gist of many of them revolves around what good the war would do the US. I’m old-fashioned like that. I think that American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States? Without a threat to the US from Iraq, I couldn’t for the life of me see which ‘just interests’ the invasion would serve. SO while I assumed that there were indeed Iraqi WMDs _of some sort_, (though I thought it was highly unreasonable and unprofessional for the Admin to’ve used the upper end of the worst case scenarios for their public statements involving the quantities of WMDs), I noted that the NIE on Iraq said that Hussein wasn’t about to initiate an attack on the US, not even by proxy. When you add this to Dr. Rice’s comments about how Iraq was effectively deterred by the threat of national “obliteration”, and Cheney’s comment re terrorism and Iraq- “Saddam Hussein’s bottled up”- then you end up with a picture that doesn’t show much pf a threat to the US from Iraq. Without this threat, what are the ‘just interests’ of the US in invading Iraq. Rather than Iraqi WMDs themselves, I’ve been more concerned about the lack of a **threat** _from_ Iraqi WMDs. The lack of significant WMD finds only serves to further illustrate the lack of a threat to the US from Iraq. (Or maybe it just colors in between the lines of an already illustrated picture?) > [@Starving Artist](#): > > …yet many of these same posters are quick to condemn those of us who perceive a synergy between Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda… What exactly is a synergy? Is it in the same class of things as a “contact”? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > …as being idiots who have fallen for Bush’s war propaganda… Personally, I think that a lot of very smart people fell for it, too. 9-11 was quite a shock for many people. We were approached while we were still fresh in mourning and feeling vulnerable. Our emotional turmoils were exploited for the purposes of selling the invasion. Intellect is no sure defense against the way that emotions can cloud issues and judgements. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > …that “if Hussein were ever perceived as having provided WMD to al-Qaeda, he would have hell to pay via the U.S. response and would therefore never be so foolish,” This actually was the very same argument used by the learned Dr. Rice. She said that Iraq would face ‘national obliteration’ and that such a threat did indeed act as a deterrant to Hussein. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > So, which is it? Would finding WMD’s in Iraq cause these posters to do an about face and proclaim that Iraqi WMD’s were indeed a threat and we were justified in invading Iraq after all… As I noted earlier, weapons, in and of themselves, do not a threat make. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > …or would they then simply claim there is no evidence Iraq would have provided al-Qaeda with WMD and we still should never have invaded Iraq because Iraqi WMD’s posed us no threat? Solid evidence of Hussein arming al Qaeda against America is something that I often fervently hope for. I’d rather be wrong than right about this whole affair. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > So, you can’t have it both ways. Would finding WMD’s in Iraq have justified the war? No, the weapons in and of themselves wouldn’t justify the war for me. There’d have to be a threat to the Us from these weapons. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Or would it have made no difference because you’re just flat out against the war in the first place and this is just an argument you use to try to discredit Bush’s motives and/or truthfulness, and you would then just fall back on the “no evidence of a relationship” argument to decry the war in Iraq, thereby exposing the hypocrisy of the “no WMD’s found” stance you use to assail the war effort? This question has several parts. The answer to the question as it now stands is simply no. But, given the complexity of the question’s phrasing, an objection to even one part renders the whole thing inoperative. So, please allow me to respond to each element individually. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Or would it [the WMDs] have made no difference because you’re just flat out against the war in the first place… I’m not ‘flat out’ against the war. I just think that we should wait til it’s in our best interests to protect our just interests before we go to war. As soon as this happens, I’m all for it. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > …this is just an argument you use to try to discredit Bush’s motives and/or truthfulness… There’s nothing further anyone can do for ‘Bush’s motives and/or truthfulness’. The poor, little buggers. While there’re still some who argue his ‘truthfulness’ there’re far fewer left who’ll argue for his honesty, (which is more important, IMHO). As to his motives, only by the fruits can we know them. So,the reply to this would be ‘no’ as well because I don’t use the argument. If I did, Iwouldn’t use it to try to discredit ‘Bush’s motives and/or truthfulness’. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > …you would then just fall back on the “no evidence of a relationship” argument to decry the war in Iraq… I’m going to discuss this part of the question, (‘field it’ as GHWB would say), rather than answer it, because of it’s peculiar syntactic restraints. What you have termed the “‘no evidence of a relationship’ argument” is just a subspecies of the ‘no-threat-to-the-USA-from-Iraq’ argument, which as my original starting point, there’s not really a way that I could claim to ‘fall back’ to it. I’m more just sort of ‘still here’. Evidence of some sort of _ **significant** _ relationship, (opposed to just a plain old relationship, I mean the US, itself, has had numerous, extensive, detailed, intimate and cooperative contacts as well as an operational, (though not necessarily consensual) relationship with al Qaeda.), bewteen Hussein and aQ would’ve beeen one of many possible good places to start a demonstration of a threat to the US from Iraq. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > …thereby exposing the hypocrisy of the “no WMD’s found” stance you use to assail the war effort? Well, given that the preceding qualifiers weren’t fulfilled, it’s impossible for anything folllowing ‘thereby’ really to have much meaning, but I’ll continue to field rather than answer. A lack of WMDs really speaks more to the inherent shortcomings of our national securit strategy which advocates _preventive_ wars. (Despite what the WH says, they’re NOT pre-emptive wars. There must be an imminent threat for there to be a pre-emption. Pre-emptive wars in the face of an imminent threat have been sanctioned as just wars for centuries. They require no policy or strategy changes, no endorsements from any bodies established by treaty, nor any defense to Congress, (as the GOP has repeatedly asked me to do). Pre-emptive wars are already US policy and already sanctioned under international law. Iraq was a preventive war. Preventive wars, as oxymoronic as they are, do require policy or strategy changes, and endorsements from bodies established by treaty, and a defense before Congress. I hope I’ve made clear how the nature of the questions you’re asking prevents you from finding the info you really seek. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/30 "2004-06-22T07:29:48Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > All of these statements have, needless to say, been proven false. > Yeah, I know, I know, you want to split hairs over whether or not Bush lied, or was simply misled by others. Putting aside the simple matrer that Bush _did_ lie (meaning he made statements with intent to deceive), that means the President of the United States is either a liar or an idiot. Do you _really_ want to ally yourself with such a character? You know, it’s amazing! I’ve been to your homepage and you are clearly a very funny and highly intelligent fellow. How you can come up with some of the things you say here just floors me. I’ve long had a theory that people function on two levels: one is intellectual, the other emotional…and that the two have little impact on each other. This is the only way I come up with as to how such intelligent people can be so completely out there in terms of logic. Do you really think the difference between President Bush lying to us as a deliberate, contrived and cunning ploy to lead us into an otherwise unjustifiable war that he just couldn’t wait to fight, versus not even being misled – which implies deceit – but simply given information that ultimately turned out to be wrong much as when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory (or whatever it was. I’m sure I’ll hear shortly although it will change nothing) is _hair-splitting_? Come on, I know you don’t really mean that…do you? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/31 "2004-06-22T08:04:35Z")
::reads SimonX’s post, leans back and sighs: Ahhhh…an intelligent and reasonable post from an intelligent and reasonable poster. How refreshing! Unfortunately, time grows short and I believe I’ve addressed most of the points you bring up in posts subsequent to my OP. I apologize for whatever syntactic and/or grammatical errors populate my posts. I am but a poor singular voice (in this thread, anyway), crying out in the wilderness and slogging away against overwhelming opposition, and trying to make myself understood as best I can. Before I leave to peruse the other forums briefly before the 3:30 Central Time lock-down, I will provide you with the definition of synergy you asked for. This from Merriam-Webster: 1. broadly: combined action or operation 2. a mutually advantageous conjunction or compatibility of distinct participants or elements (as resources or efforts) I certainly have no problem whatsoever seeing a likely synergistic relationship between al-Qaeda and Hussein. While much of your post seems to concentrate on the threat posed by Iraq itself, this is not and has never been my concern. But what Dr. Rice said notwithstanding, I could very easily envision a scenario in which al-Qaeda had attacked the U.S. with a WMD it obtained from Iraq, and assuming the WMD can be traced to Iraq, Hussein claims no knowledge of it…it may be an old one he didn’t know was there and it was apparently sold to al-Qaeda by some subordinate, etc. The U.N. and the peace-at-any-cost crowd would either believe him or call for endless investigations to determine whether or not Hussein knew, and if he did what action should be taken. Then, of course, no agreement could ever be reached as to how the weapon actually fell into al-Qaeda hands nor in regard to what action should be taken. Then, if the U.S. took action on its own, after having tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people killed in a city like New York or Washington or Philadelphia, etc., it would still be reviled in pretty much the same way as it is today. “We’re looking for a cat to kick after having been attacked again; we’ve had it in for Hussein all along and have been faunching at the bit to attack him and this is the perfect excuse; we don’t care what the rest of the world thinks we should do,” etc. Me, I’ll go with GWB and his approach any day. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/32 "2004-06-22T08:05:55Z")
I mean, reads **SimonX** ’s post… Sorry I forgot to give you props, Simon. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/33 "2004-06-22T08:06:27Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Another thing that somehow never seems to get mentioned around here is, if Hussein was so innocent, Uh, nobody said he was “innocent”. Duh. > [@](#): > > and he knew U.S. patience was running out given our concerns about WMD being used in terrorist attacks, why didn’t he just open up completely and say, “Sure, come on in. I have nothing to hide, as I told you. Look wherever you want,” followed by complete and open cooperation all the way down the line. Actually, that’s pretty much what he did. The inspectors _were_ being allowed to do their work, that is, until Bush told them to get out so he could invade. > [@](#): > > If anyone was in the position to avoid this war, it was Hussein. Why is he being given a pass? He’s not being given a pass. What you’re not getting is that we don’t just get to unilaterally invade whatever country we like because it’s run by a bad guy. If there’s international consensus, and the U.N. votes to do it, yeah - then it’s possible. But that didn’t happen. That’s why Bush tried to make the case that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., so he could justify it as self defense. But his flimsy case fell apart like a house of cards. War isn’t always the answer, and just because the U.N. decides to take action _other_ than war does not mean they’re giving anyone “a pass”. And there’s absolutely no reason Bush couldn’t have waited, and given the inspectors more time, in the interest of international relations. But he had to act like a petulant child and insist that it be done “right now”. > [@](#): > > And did not GWB give Hussein one last chance to bail. So? That justifies a preemptive attack? > [@](#): > > He informed him he had 48 hours to leave and avoid war. Hussein demurred. This 48 hours could have been much better spent springing a surprise attack, as opposed to giving Hussein and his henchmen even more time to prepare. I don’t think it was a surprise by that point. Everyone knew Bush was going to attack. > [@](#): > > This was very disadvantageous to us militarily as it gave him advance knowledge of when the attack would occur and allowed him to make preparations which undoubtedly cost additional U.S. lives. The date of the attack was not announced. We didn’t know until after it had begun. > [@](#): > > But that didn’t happen, and here we are with all of you claiming Bush was just faunching at the bit to lie to us and send young men and women off to die just because he wanted to be a cowboy. Yeah, that’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/34 "2004-06-22T08:27:06Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > He’s not being given a pass. What you’re not getting is that we don’t just get to unilaterally invade whatever country we like because it’s run by a bad guy. And what you’re not getting is we didn’t invade because we didn’t like his politics. We want to make damn sure no Iraqi WMD make it into al-Qaeda hands. > [@blowero](#): > > If there’s international consensus, and the U.N. votes to do it, yeah - then it’s possible. As I’ve said before, the U.N. isn’t the one to pay the price in human lives and destruction should an Iraqi WMD find its way into al-Qaeda hands go off in the U.S. We have a right to defend ourselves. The U.N. had more than enough opportunities to show it meant business, and in its typical benign and impotent way, did absolutely nothing! > [@blowero](#): > > But that didn’t happen. That’s a shocker, all right! But he had to act like a petulant child and insist that it be done “right now”. [/quote] You have got to be kidding! The President of the United States, a millionaire businessman, fighter pilot, Yale graduate, and two-term governor of the huge state of Texas, is a “petulent child” who just decided willy-nilly to send young American men and women off to die in Iraq because, damn it, he just doesn’t like Iraq. Have you seen how much President Bush has aged since 9/11 the start of the war? Do you really think he would send people off to die so willy-nilly? Ridiculous! ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/35 "2004-06-22T12:09:34Z")
> [@StarvingArtist](#): > > The President of the United States, a millionaire businessman, fighter pilot, Yale graduate, and two-term governor of the huge state of Texas, is a “petulent child” who just decided willy-nilly to send young American men and women off to die in Iraq because, damn it, he just doesn’t like Iraq. No. It’s cuz Saddam tried to keel hiz daddy. I agree with **rjung**. Either Bush is an unscrupulous liar or he’s a gullible idiot being controlled by evil forces. I can’t decide which one is worse. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/36 "2004-06-22T12:20:31Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > And what you’re not getting is we didn’t invade because we didn’t like his politics. We want to make damn sure no Iraqi WMD make it into al-Qaeda hands. As I’ve said before, the U.N. isn’t the one to pay the price in human lives and destruction should an Iraqi WMD find its way into al-Qaeda hands go off in the U.S. We have a right to defend ourselves. The U.N. had more than enough opportunities to show it meant business, and in its typical benign and impotent way, did absolutely nothing! That’s a shocker, all right! But he had to act like a petulant child and insist that it be done “right now”. You have got to be kidding! The President of the United States, a millionaire businessman, fighter pilot, Yale graduate, and two-term governor of the huge state of Texas, is a “petulent child” who just decided willy-nilly to send young American men and women off to die in Iraq because, damn it, he just doesn’t like Iraq. Have you seen how much President Bush has aged since 9/11 the start of the war? Do you really think he would send people off to die so willy-nilly? Ridiculous! [/QUOTE] These arguments are pure 2003. Look through the archived threads for answers. ---
**Author:** ![RTA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RTA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTA)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/37 "2004-06-22T13:05:59Z")
Well, I’ll tell you what. If they ever find WMDs, then we’ll talk. And we all know we’re not talking about some rusty old shitcan buried in the sand since 1984! I want to see yellowcake uranium, unmanned aerial vehicles that spray biotoxins, Al Qaeda’s receipts for Iraqi dirty bombs, anything. ANYTHING! Throw us a bone here! ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/38 "2004-06-22T13:10:51Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > And one thing that rarely seems to get mentioned around here is the tremendous loss of life could very likely occur in the event the Bush administration fails to confront every threat. As oposed to the tremendus loss of life that actually did happen in the event of the Bush administration confronting a non-existant threat? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/39 "2004-06-22T13:25:32Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Bin Laden would never purchase weapons from a secularist such as Hussein This, to me, is the weakest of the arguments by far against Osama having ties to Saddam. The back and forth cooperation among religion and government politicians has been historically legion. There are certain men who use religion as a means to achieve political gain, and I think Bin Laden is one of those. The Qu’ran clearly does not sanction the destruction of innocent life, or for that matter the lives of faithful Jews and Christians. Bin Laden’s interest is political, not religious, much like certain famous American religious leaders. The latter may not blow up buildings, but they use their positions of authority to build empires all the same. Now, he may wish to paint a picture of himself as a pious man by officially condemning secularists, but only the most naive fool would believe that the inside tent-talk is anything other than how to achieve political victory. There are ways to cooperate with the likes of Saddam without sending a message of cooperation. In fact, such surreptitioius dealings occur in diplomatic circles all the time. If worse ever came to worst, Bin Laden could always have pointed to Sadam’s “conversion” to Islam and claim that God had ordered him to reach out in conciliation, all the while condemning him if necessary. Such goings on are nothing new. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586/40 "2004-06-22T13:40:43Z")
First of all, one needn’t be a liberal to take issue with Mr. Bush’s Iraq war. Why this is presented as a liberal paradox escapes me, it seems needlessly inflammatory. There are such things as justifiable wars and there are ways to enter into them legally. What is sad in Bush’s case is that he failed to learn from his own father on the proper way to initiate a war, conduct it, and then get out. The reason for the war, at the time the war started, was the WMDs that supposedly posed a threat to the US. This has been shown to be false. A secondary reason was the supposed connection to the War on Terrorism. No such connection has been established. A third reason was the atrocities committed by Hussein. Only the third had any validity, but then the US surrendered the only moral high ground that it had by torturing its POWs. I would have supported this war IF these weapons were actually found and IF they posed a threat to the US or its allies and IF there was any hard linkage between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. None of these has been shown to be true, therefore I do not see this paradox. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epiphany-regarding-a-liberal-paradox/251586.md?page=3)