# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/21 "2005-05-03T20:43:40Z")
Just to re-inforce the point : Blair is getting a shitload of grief over Iraq at the moment. Doesnt mean he has to listen. In fact he only has one answer - ‘we tried to go to the UN for a second resolution, but France said no’. He repeats it veery well though. Luci - GWB wont pay, Balir wont pay. The Iraqis will pay for many years to come. Dunno what else to suggest really. Sin ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/22 "2005-05-03T20:44:26Z")
**luc** : \*Sure he can. He just did. \* Yeah, at first. But now at least he’s given a serious response about the substance of the issue. I don’t mind if Bush supporters deny that Bush misled the public about the war—I think they’re wrong, but they’re entitled to their opinion, as long as they’re willing to defend it. What I do mind is if they try to sweep the whole thing away as a non-issue inspired by mere irrational Bush-hatred. No way dude—lying about war, or starting a war illegally, is a very serious issue, and if such an allegation is at all credible, it **MUST** be taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/23 "2005-05-03T20:55:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re asking me to accept, for the truth of the matter, the memo writer’s impressions of the briefing conductor’s impressions of the way the matter was being handled by the Bush administration. > > _IF_ I accept that the memo writer was honest, and _IF_ I accept that his impression was accurate, and _IF_ I accept the the person giving the briefing accurately understood and portrayed his bosses’ approach, and _IF_ I accept that this accuracy of impressions approach is true, unfiltered, and correct all the way back to the President… then that’s truly disturbing. > > But those are assumptions I’m not prepared to make. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/24 "2005-05-03T20:59:13Z")
My response was delayed by cognitive factors and internet gremlins. Plus some wierd ass echo effect I cannot account for. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/25 "2005-05-03T21:17:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > … > _IF_ I accept that the memo writer was honest, and _IF_ I accept that his impression was accurate, and _IF_ I accept the the person giving the briefing accurately understood and portrayed his bosses’ approach, and _IF_ I accept that this accuracy of impressions approach is true, unfiltered, and correct all the way back to the President… then that’s truly disturbing… What utter rot. “_IF_ I accept that the memo writer was honest, and _IF_ I accept that his impression was accurate…” Sir Richard Dearlove (you just _can’t_ make something like that up…) Britains spy chief, presumably a man in whom the PM has some confidence, don’t you think? Confident enough to proceed with war plans. [http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story\_2-5-2005\_pg4\_3](http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-5-2005_pg4_3) “…IF\* I accept the the person giving the briefing accurately understood and portrayed his bosses’ approach…” How could he not have? By what mechanism do you suggest he was sent to the meeting with an agenda entirely opposite, or even partially discordant, with “his bosse’s” approach? This isn’t even grasping for straws, this is grasping for the shadow of a straw. Do you hear any denials? And, further, if the British were wildly mistaken about the Bush intentions and approach, don’t you think that would have sufaced at some point, given that this was months…_months_, mind you…before the actual onset of hostilities. You may wish to characterize this as “hearsay”, and I well understand why you might wish to, but hearsay from people in a position to know is quite different from the rumor one hear’s from one’s sister-in-laws hairdresser. Got anything plausible? ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/26 "2005-05-03T21:22:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “…and now we go to Victor Vacuous, who’s talking with Sandra Bullock’s Karmic advisor, about her responsibility in making _Runaway Bride_, and its influence on these shatteringly important events…” What the fuck is wrong with you? It was Julia Roberts in _Runaway Bride_. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/27 "2005-05-03T21:25:08Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > It should upset anyone with a rudimentary sense of honor that we live in a country where the administration can lie through their teeth Honestly, after Clinton I stopped caring. They all freaking lie, and right at us these days. It’s like being outraged that the Mob would kill you after promising not to if you told them where the money was. Where’s the ‘blah’ smiley? ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/28 "2005-05-03T21:36:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Translation: > > _Gee, I \* REALLY \* don’t like President Bush, and it really upsets me that the majority of voters don’t share my outrage._ New CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll out today reports that 55% of American voters disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq. Your view is now in the minority, **Bricker** , by a percentage that George W. Bush would call a mandate. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/29 "2005-05-03T22:04:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re asking me to accept, for the truth of the matter, the memo writer’s impressions of the briefing conductor’s impressions of the way the matter was being handled by the Bush administration. > > _IF_ I accept that the memo writer was honest, and _IF_ I accept that his impression was accurate, and _IF_ I accept the the person giving the briefing accurately understood and portrayed his bosses’ approach, and _IF_ I accept that this accuracy of impressions approach is true, unfiltered, and correct all the way back to the President… then that’s truly disturbing. > > But those are assumptions I’m not prepared to make. Let’s examine these players a bit. The person giving the briefing (C) is giving the briefing precisely because he is a professional diplomat with first hand exposure to the Bush administration. Employed and charged with accurate representation of the policies expressed during such talks. His superiors, being human, can not personally attend every diplomatic meeting on every topic so they employ representatives skilled in communicating the policies clearly, effectively, and accurately. It is his job to make sure his “impressions of the way the matter was being handled by the Bush administration” are fair representations of the policy. So, the first link in the chain, the briefer giving the presentation, seems reasonably reliable. Of course you could contend the presenter was still inaccurate, being human and all, but the probability goes down a fair bit when you consider he is a professional spokesman for policymakers and charged with conducting briefings in which the content is a fair and accurate representation of the policy. Next link in the chain, the memo-writer. I presume you understand that just like in court, these are professionals whose job it is to keep the record. The record may have errors in it but, just like a court reporter’s transcriptions, these official records of the events at the briefing are generally fair and accurate. Again this is a professional charged with capturing the meeting contents accurately for reporting to policymakers. We’re not talking blogs here with Matt Drudge summarizing some legal document. We’re talking professional diplomats and note-takers. This is hardly something to be hand-waved as hearsay. For added irony, please keep your “totem-pole hearsay” hat on and re-read the [National Intelligence Estimates from 2002](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html), with particular emphasis on these sections, which Bush apparently thought solid enough to include in the SotU. > [@](#): > > A foreign government service {Britain?} reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of “pure uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement. > > • Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/30 "2005-05-03T22:21:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Translation: > > _Gee, I \* REALLY \* don’t like President Bush, and it really upsets me that the majority of voters don’t share my outrage._ > > Wow, that IS news. I’ve been wondering for quite a while now, **Bricker** - is there ANYTHING that Bush could do that would conceivably put a dent in your obvious admiration for the man and his policies? You seem to be pretty damned reliable- if there’s a negative thread about Bush and friends, you pop your head into the thread almost _immediately_ to heap scorn upon the instigator of the thread. Seriously- if Bush were to be shown to be a baby-eatin’, yak-fellatin’, liberal-lovin’ jerk, would you at any point be willing to say, “Okay, maybe he’s not as wonderful as I’ve maintained”? 'Cause at this point your stance doesn’t appear to be so much “I think he’s doing a great job” as it is “I’ve said in the past that Bush is The Man, and I don’t want to appear to have been wrong at any point in my life about him”. Um… kinda like you don’t want to appear to “waffle”, I suppose… ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/31 "2005-05-03T22:37:31Z")
**Bricker** , completely ignoring the cite in the OP, do you think Bush was open to a negotiated, peaceful solution? If so, under what conditions? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/32 "2005-05-03T22:47:45Z")
> [@vibrotronica](#): > > New CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll out today reports that 55% of American voters disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq. Your view is now in the minority, **Bricker** , by a percentage that George W. Bush would call a mandate. HOw are they defining ‘voters’? THose that DID vote in the last election? Those that are eligible to vote in the next? Registered voters who are more likely to stay home on election day? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/33 "2005-05-03T23:10:20Z")
Whazza diff? If they only solicited responses from carbon-based life forms, so what? I suppose, from the Bushivik point of view, vetting them as voters makes it from bad to worse, but still, there isn’t any _good_ news there. Perhaps I misunderstand the thrust of your question. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/34 "2005-05-04T00:21:08Z")
> [@Lightnin'](#): > > I’ve been wondering for quite a while now, **Bricker** - is there ANYTHING that Bush could do that would conceivably put a dent in your obvious admiration for the man and his policies? You think **Bricker** is impenetrable, try reading something from **Brutus** or **Clothahump** sometime. The resolution of Bush apologists to stand up for his actions continues to amaze me, even now. If only such power could be harnessed for _good,_ instead of evil… ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/35 "2005-05-04T00:50:40Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Close. Try: > > \*Gee, I REALLY don’t like President Bush’s deceiving the American people about the reasons for starting a war, and it really upsets me that the majority of voters don’t share my outrage. \* The thing about this that still irks me is the fact that I _knew_ Bush was lying from the start. I was as certain about that fact as I am certain the sky is blue. But I also _knew_ that by the time everyone else had absolute proof he was full of shit, we’d be so immersed in “Democracy For Iraq” and “Aren’t we better off without Saddam in power?” that the underlying justification would be forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/36 "2005-05-04T05:09:08Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > The thing about this that still irks me is the fact that I _knew_ Bush was lying from the start. I was as certain about that fact as I am certain the sky is blue. Did you get called a traitor to your face for stating that fact? I did. Closest I’ve come to a fist fight in 30 years. **kidchameleon** , I remember a time when a president who had won reelection by literally historic proportions was driven from office only a year and a half later for his crimes. I am apalled that my country has changed to such an extent that that is no longer possible. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/37 "2005-05-04T13:59:11Z")
> [@sinical brit](#): > > Just to re-inforce the point : Blair is getting a shitload of grief over Iraq at the moment. Doesnt mean he has to listen. But aren’t the most recent polls showing Labour, and Blair, returning to power anyway? Once he’s had his own “accountability moment”, damn straight he won’t be listening. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/38 "2005-05-04T14:17:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But aren’t the most recent polls showing Labour, and Blair, returning to power anyway? Once he’s had his own “accountability moment”, damn straight he won’t be listening. You have to bear in mind the UK political system is different. We don’t vote for Blair, we vote for a local Member of Parliament. Unlike the USA this means that the Execeutive and the Legislature (ignoring the permanent Tory majority in the House of Lords) is always the same party. This means we cannot directly punish Blair without also punishing those who, as John Lennon famously put it, live in the cracks between the 2 parties. I’m in this position - I want to punish Blair but at the same time I don’t want to punish the poor who benefit from the social programs the Tories will scupper to fund their ‘to those that hath shall go more’ approach. I can’t vote for Kennedy to be PM, all I can do is vote the Lib-Dem candidate and as they have no chance of winning in this constituency and it is a marginal, it means not voting for Labour is a direct vote for the Conservatives. I guess I’m going to vote Labour, with the gamble that Blair will be dumped by his party in the next 18 months. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/39 "2005-05-04T14:28:53Z")
I do understand the system and the bind it puts you into. My question was if Blair will choose to interpret a Labour victory as a vindication of his Iraq policies. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262/40 "2005-05-04T14:31:45Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > **Bricker** , completely ignoring the cite in the OP, do you think Bush was open to a negotiated, peaceful solution? If so, under what conditions? I think if Saddam Hussein had agreed to full, complete, open, no-conditions, no-bullshit weapons inspections, and committed again to observing the no-fly zone imposed after GW I, I believe that would have guaranteed a peaceful solution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-iraqi-smoking-gun-and-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/302262.md?page=3)