# Another Iraqi Smoking Gun, and the Dog That Didn't Bark **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 3, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262 "2005-05-03T19:38:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/201 "2005-05-06T14:24:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Show me the poll that says a majority of Americans believe the President LIED to get us into war, and I will accpet your correction. I’m not sure if you can see this w/o a subscription, but Gallup has the number @ 50% so far answering, “Yes, deliberately misled” to the question, " Do you think the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or not?": [http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=1633](http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=1633) > [@Bricker](#): > > I start with the position that the President of the United States would not lie to Congress and the American people, because he is a constitutional officer, the chief executive, and he is aware of his unique and weighty role in our government. > > All of these may be explained by the good-faith mistake – that Mr. Bush was relying on intel that ultimately was wrong. Certainly he bears responsibility for creating an environment in which there was no perceived pressure by his staff to slant intel one way or another, but this is a far cry from a deliberate lie. And, as is amply demonstrated here, [Team Bush and “Best Info Available @ the Time”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310455), Team Bush was\*\* _deliberately_ “imprecise” to the point of making statements _known_ to be untrue\*\* (perhaps these constitute “lies”, perhaps not) in their attempts to persuade the electorate to back the invasion of Iraq. They went against what was the intel available to them at the time. The info available to Team Bush was that Hussein was unlikely to attack the US; however, however the war was sold as a war of pre-emption. AFAICT, the intel was saying that Iraq wasn’t going to attack the US directly or by proxy. By definition, w/o an impending attack, there can be no pre-emptive war. The war was sold as an act of pre-emption. Drop by the thread if you actually can dispute this. If you’ve only hand waving, don’t bother. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/202 "2005-05-06T14:29:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What?!? Someone called you a traitor outside the SDMB, and someone calls me a coward in this very thread, and we are to discuss the two events here in this thread, granting them equal relevance? > > You’re crazy. Batshit, blubbering crazy. Go away now and peddle crazy somewhere else – we’re full up here. So only elements in the SDMB count. Got it. You are totally insane. I hope you stick to contracts and avoid trials. So, you’re a sociopath and a moron. Go Bricker! -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/203 "2005-05-06T14:32:42Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > So only elements in the SDMB count. Got it. You are totally insane. I hope you stick to contracts and avoid trials. > > So, you’re a sociopath and a moron. Go Bricker! It would not surprise me in the least to learn that you have been repeatedly hospitalized for unspecified mental illnesses. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/204 "2005-05-06T14:33:48Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > I’m referring to the mistakes made by all the data collectors and the data interpreters. And by the Pres and his people. I’m not ready to point the blame directly on the head of the POTUS. I will cling to the belief that the intentions were correct given the data that we had at the time regarding the alleged dangers of/in Iraq. What came to light during the war doesn’t justify my opponents anti-war (pre-war) stance. I consider it a lucky guess. We all had the same information pre-war. You chose to downplay the significance of the WMDs and were correct in hindsight. [Team Bush and “Best Info Available @ the Time”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310455) Am I prescient or what? ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/205 "2005-05-06T14:33:51Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > So only elements in the SDMB count. Got it. You are totally insane. I hope you stick to contracts and avoid trials. > > So, you’re a sociopath and a moron. Go Bricker! > > -Joe Uh, Merijeek, you’re sounding a little…off. No, you’re sounding a lot off. If you have a beef with something **Bricker** posted, re-post it. If you have a beef with something someone else posted, and are taking it out on **Bricker** …uh… …uh… That’s bad? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/206 "2005-05-06T14:36:46Z")
From the “Best info @ the time” OP: > [@PatriotX](#): > > It has been “contended” that Team Bush “acted according to the best information available” at the time. > This contention must be made w/o regard to the organizations created to gather supporting evidence that varied widely in quality to tie a threat of terrorism against the US to, “[sweep it all up, things related and not](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml),” as Rumsfeld put it. These organizations, (specifically the OSP, [Office of Special Plans](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=199309), and the PCTEG, Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group), are sure to have lent credence in the eyes of some, to the view of Mohammed Atta, and undoubtedly other members of al Qaida, that “[Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East](http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:YZuQ3doiKJgJ:www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm+%22To+him,+Saddam+Hussein+was+an+American+stooge+set+up+to+give+Washington+an+excuse+to+intervene+in+the+Middle+East.+%22&hl=en)”[sup][[alt link](http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm)][/sup] > So we have the creation of these extra groups that function outside of the normal operations of the US intelligence system to find the raw materials necessary for Team Bush to cruft a sales pitch for the idea of a threat from Iraq to the US to the American electorate. > > Despite the litany of reasons cited for going to war with Iraq, according to one senior official, the threat to the US was recognized within Team Bush as the only one that could justify putting “[American kids’ lives at risk…on the scale we did…](http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200305/msg00218.html)” So this idea of an Iraqi threat was absolutely necessary for the war effort to prevail. > > Team Bush’s threat spiel was dependent on three main elements: Hussein’s non-conventional weapons; Hussein’s “operational relationship” with terrorists who would attack the US, (al Qaida being the most well branded candidate); and the idea that Hussein was undeterrable and thus a madman. Without any of these three, the case for a threat to the US from Iraq would be weakened significantly. And thuis the case for invading Iraq would likewise be crippled. > > The second most important of these three items were the strong, meaningful and significant ties to a terrorist group likely to attack the US, specifically al Qaida. To further this end, **iffy and/or previously debunked reports were stripped of contexts, professional analysis and descriptions of their relative accuracy and presented to the electorate as reliable information.** Even classified national security intel was leaked to Bush friendly press outlets to further this idea. **Team Bush purposefully used information that was not “the best available” to sell this idea.** ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/207 "2005-05-06T15:40:55Z")
In shirt, they fucking lied. No new information at all. But it doesn’t matter, because of the frigging huge 51 percent Mandate ™. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/208 "2005-05-06T17:26:32Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > Heh, I remember that exchange. I also remember thinking it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any human being (I assume correctly?) to possibly get ALL the information available. 'Specially sitting in your chair in front of a computer screen, or reading whatever sources you had available to you. Never once said I had “ALL” the data. Never once claimed I was in posession of omniscience in regards to Saddam’s WMD. Still, it doesn’t take omniscience to be able to have enough of an educated viewpoint to determine if someone else’s view is wildly out of touch with the publically available facts. Like I’ve said since then, I have been hoping and praying(well, as close as an agnostic ever gets anyway) that I was wrong and that Bush had some super-secret intel which was solid as a rock and would bear fruit on the ground. I can’t bear the thought that thousands upon thousands of people are now dead as a result of a war which anyone who did their homework(like I did), based on publically available evidence, could have seen was unnecessary at the time. The public info pointed to the idea that containment was working, with a high confidence level, especially since inspectors were back in-country and getting full access and co-operation. I never said “Saddam doesn’t have anything at all, Bush is lying.” I said “The public facts don’t jive with Bush’s presentations. If he wants to start a war over whatever secret info he has then he should make it public for examination and verification before he does something which can’t be undone. At very least so that his constituents(where the political power is theoretically vested in the US) can have a real understanding of the threat he claims we face. I am not willing to start a major conflict unilaterally on basis of what I have seen and what I have seen makes me dubious about what Bush claims he has.” It was only after he went ahead with the war and even more bits and pieces, like the memo in the OP, came to light that I converted to a “Bush was full of shit” viewpoint. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/209 "2005-05-06T17:44:30Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > I never said “Saddam doesn’t have anything at all, Bush is lying.” I said “The public facts don’t jive with Bush’s presentations. If he wants to start a war over whatever secret info he has then he should make it public for examination and verification before he does something which can’t be undone. At very least so that his constituents(where the political power is theoretically vested in the US) can have a real understanding of the threat he claims we face. I am not willing to start a major conflict unilaterally on basis of what I have seen and what I have seen makes me dubious about what Bush claims he has.” Well said Steven. FWIW, they lost me after the UN presentation. After I saw Powell giving that pathetic presentation I know we had nothing. I was also kind of embarrased for my country trying to pull that off, it was really weak. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/210 "2005-05-06T18:15:20Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > FWIW, they lost me after the UN presentation. After I saw Powell giving that pathetic presentation I know we had nothing. I was also kind of embarrased for my country trying to pull that off, it was really weak. There were plenty of [dubious statements and outrights lies](http://middleeastreference.org.uk/writings.html) prior to Powell’s [dog & pony show](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml) at the UN albeit, in hindsight, I can see how many Americans might have been prone to giving their Government the benefit of the doubt up to that point. I say that because it’s also become readily apparent since, just how trusting so many of you are of the political/ruling classes. As to why that is, what with the samples of Vietnam, Nixon, Reagan, or even Clinton, in such recent historical memory, well, it beats the hell out of me. However, at this point in time, attempting to apologize/cover-up for the murderous Bush Cabal is either[downright inmoral or flat out willful ignorance](http://www.juancole.com/2005/04/guest-comment-bush-is-lying-by-kevin.html). ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/211 "2005-05-06T18:35:57Z")
Whew! I just finished reading all four and something pages of this trainwreck of a thread. **Bricker**. I have the desire to scold you like a child who has declared war on a hornets nest. Yes, you are doing an admirable job of dispatching the hornets by slapping them down from the sky as they appear. Being particularly dimwitted, these hornets haven’t even been able to sting you as of yet. They really are simple, predictable, foolish creatures. But, it’s really just not a good idea. Nothing good came come of it. The topic of this thread started out to be how tired all of the Bush bashers are from all of the mindless Bush bashing. I can see how it would be. Day after day Bush, being the President of the United States of America, is always saying something in public or implementing some new policy. There is a whole lot of material there to get through. That’s a lot of work to bash everything he does. It’s clear that a lot of you don’t take breaks either. This is a 24/7 gig. It’s a big part of who you people are. So, you’re tired. Physically and emotionally. You’re drained. I can see that, I really can. But, now you’ve found a new hobby! A new way to play the same old game. It’s easy, too! You don’t even have to learn any new tricks or rules. It’s called **Bricker** bashing! The same bizarre, unfounded, insane type of allegations that are regularly made against Bush can be targetted at anyone. Suddenly you all aren’t so tired anymore. **Bricker** , like most sane people, doesn’t even agree with your repeated mantra that **BUSHliedBUSHLIEDbushLIED**! How dare he. So, he is the perfect target for your petty rage. Since he dares to disagree with you all, it’s clear that you feel free from any restraint in your attacks on him. Make stuff up and attribute it to him. Ignore the rules of debate and make the onus on him to prove everything, even your own statements. Take what he posts and twist it beyond recognition to make him look EVIL. Keep at it, and you can make him out to be as evil as Bush even! * * * **Bricker** , my friend, come back away from that nest. Seriously, that’s enough. Lower the flyswatter. Drop the can of hornet spray. You’ve done enough for one day. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/212 "2005-05-06T18:40:31Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Whew! I just finished reading all four and something pages of this trainwreck of a thread. How did you find time? Did you finally cease the incessant whining about getting your “Charter” back? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/213 "2005-05-06T19:00:44Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Bricker, like most sane people, doesn’t even agree with your repeated mantra that BUSHliedBUSHLIEDbushLIED! While **Bricker** lustily fellates, shameless **Debaser** shows us the source orifice of his shit-eating grin. Starting to get lonely in their addled world. [Global poll slams Bush leadership](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4185205.stm) > [@](#): > > On average across all countries, 58% of people - and 16 out of 21 countries polled - said they believed Mr Bush’s re-election to the White House made the world more dangerous. > > \ > > Most negative feelings were found in Western European, Latin American and Muslim countries. > > They include traditional US allies such as Germany, France, Britain and Italy as well as neighbours Canada and Mexico. > > \ > > “This is quite a grim picture for the US,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), which carried out the poll with GlobeScan. [Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMDs](http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000894970) > [@](#): > > NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning. > > “This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003,” the pollsters observed. “At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004.” > > Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. Reality bites…those who attempt to make their own. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/214 "2005-05-06T19:06:16Z")
Debaser, do you have anything, anything at all, to say about the cited news articles? Perhaps you’d like to pretend that literally all we’ve been saying is “Bush lied!”, and that we haven’t time and again posted actual evidence of this? I’m sure that it makes you feel better to think this, if what processess have led you to your current conclusions can be called thinking, but they don’t actually address any of the points made, other than claiming that we’ve been making them a lot. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/215 "2005-05-06T19:16:58Z")
Wow, **Debased** , you’ve done it! The entirely content-free post, innocent of even the implication of argument, it entirely ignores even the suggestion of rebuttal, gamboling freely about without ever once touching the ground! One gasps with admiration! You even manage to suggest that your political opponents are fools and knaves without any reference _whatsoever_ to the actual subject of discussion! You depict you and yours as the hounded victims of the Vast Conspiracy without the least acknowledgement of the mountain of facts hulking just over your shoulder! It is a masterpiece of disingenuous innocence. The Leader would be proud! ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/216 "2005-05-06T19:22:09Z")
Nice of you to get in on the conversation Mr. helper. (obscure?) > [@Debaser](#): > > Being particularly dimwitted, these hornets haven’t even been able to sting you as of yet. They really are simple, predictable, foolish creatures. I think Rick has been taken to the wall on some great points. > [@](#): > > The same bizarre, unfounded, insane type of allegations that are regularly made against Bush can be targetted at anyone. Suddenly you all aren’t so tired anymore. Insane allegations? To suggest that he or others twisted the truth in order to strengthen their case for war is insane? > [@](#): > > **Bricker** , like most sane people, doesn’t even agree with your repeated mantra that **BUSHliedBUSHLIEDbushLIED**! He doesn’t? > [@Bricker](#): > > Well, then we can put this debate to a close. > > I acknowledge that the Bush administration was deceptive about the presence of WMD in Iraq. > > I deny that Mr. Bush, himself, was deceptive. We’re simply trying to determine why Bush =! Bush administration, and he’s stonewalling us with “it depends on the definition of is” tactics. > [@](#): > > Take what he posts and twist it beyond recognition to make him look EVIL. Keep at it, and you can make him out to be as evil as Bush even! If anyone has been twisting words, it’s him, with his tired little semantic nitpicking contests. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/217 "2005-05-06T20:25:24Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Whew! … enough for one day. Come on by and set the record straight: [Team Bush and “Best Info Available @ the Time”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310455) Next is the task for Attack-Iraq-Bush-Backers is to explain why it’s okay for a government to govern w/o the consent of the governed. Obviously, the decisions of the electorate to back the invasion were made based on deceptive information- malinfo. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/218 "2005-05-06T20:38:15Z")
Well, that was a spot of fun, trog-bashing, and all that. But in accordance with my awesome powers as the OP, I’d like to turn the discussion back to the original point. How come the dog didn’t bark? Clearly, we can breeze right past the Vast Liberal Conspiracy because, well, after all, they didn’t, did they? Next conjecture: that the news isn’t, everybody already knows this stuff, its like revealing new evidence that implicates Lee Harvey Oswald in the death of JFK. All open minds have been reached, only such diehards (as herein represented) that hunker down in a bunker mentality remain, and they are beyond anything short of surgical intervention (which I would not support. Just to make that clear.) Which kind of means that only a response would have made this story “get legs”. That if the Bushiviks came out in fulsome and blistering attack mode, _that_ would have been news. Not the man biting the dog, but suing the dog for assault. And, as you have certainly noticed, they were entirely silent on this revelation. Now, to my mind, that is a tacit acceptance, since the released memo explicitly and clearly refutes key Bushivik contention. Which is to say that they recognize what we recognize: that there are no more undecided to fight over. I am dismissing out of hand the opposite conspiracy theory: that the Bushivik minions have a throttle hold on the media such that they can smother this story a-borning. But for some reason, this potential bombshell dropped and didn’t go bang. How very odd. Anybody else got any ideas as to howcum? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/219 "2005-05-06T20:55:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But in accordance with my awesome powers as the OP, I’d like to turn the discussion back to the original point. How come the dog didn’t bark? Clearly, we can breeze right past the Vast Liberal Conspiracy because, well, after all, they didn’t, did they? What does Iraq, a sanctioned and crippled country, have which makes it worth it to the UK to become the US’s enemy? I figure Blair and co realized the backlash which would arise from refusing to support the war from the US. See how the French have been villified? See how Admin officials are cutting non-coalition countries out of any say or opportunities in rebuilding Iraq? See senior Admin officials(Cheney? Rumsfeld? I can’t recall exactly who) saying tha there would be payback for France’s opposition to the US in the Security Council? Given this alternative, and the fact that their own commitment would be very small compared to the US commitment, going along with the war and preserving good relations with the US may have been the lesser of two evils in Blair’s estimation. Some, like Robin Cook, obviously disagreed to the point where they were willing to sacrifice their own careers than participate in the war, but most were not. Frankly I think the involvement of the UK is the only saving grace in the whole thing. Areas patrolled by the UK troops are more peaceful and their troops don’t seem to offend the Iraqis like the US troops do. They’ve taken far fewer losses, even proportionally. The UK standing by the US during this damn fool war has made quite a difference. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_the_Impaler)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/220 "2005-05-06T21:34:28Z")
Okay, here are my WAGS, **lucie** : The press won’t give it show-opening attention (or front page above the fold coverage) out of fear of being shut out by the administration in retaliation. Because they’re all waiting for one major news outlet to have the balls to give it said level of coverage (ie - The NY Times, The Washington Post, CBS), thereby giving it the “credibility” they need to also cover it. So they don’t get shut out by the adminstration. Because they’re quivering wimps at the threat of being labeled “The Liberal Media”. Because once Bush’s negative ratings hit the tipping point, then they’ll cover it, and not before (because the press are a bunch of pussies - like a lot of us - and only want to be associated with A Winner). Because there’s a third rung to the ladder, that is, those that aren’t forcibly opposed to or vehemently for Bush. The people who just don’t give a shit either way. And why lead with something that won’t draw them in? At this point it’s just not sexy enough. You just watch. Once the press gets the merest hint that this story will garner a ratings bump, they’ll pimp it for all it’s worth. Now with more Graphics!! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262.md?page=12)