# Bewildered Bush-Bashers' Beastly Barrage of Backstabbing **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 7, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323 "2003-06-07T19:19:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/61 "2003-06-09T13:46:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > Similarly, the pre-war estimate of Iraq’s WMD stocks may have been off, but the reality was that Iraq was not complying with various UN resolutions regarding WMDs. I understand you are a complete idiot and incapable of putting any truly rational or logical thought together in that pudding that you have as a brain, unless it has been suitably predigested by some comfortably melwing right wing hack of a pundit, however this comparision is idiotic even for you. There is a substantial difference, idiot boy, btw an emergency estimate and the characterizations regarding Iraq’s mythical NBC stocks - that you were hyperventilating about and now… well they clearly don’t exist as you and your mewling masters thought, eh what? As for Iraqi compliance, well, that is (a) an open question and (b) not relevant to the issue. > [@](#): > > And, they are now getting more people, according to news reports I’ve seen. Rather late in the motherfucking game. > [@](#): > > If by, “inadaquate”, you mean, “failed to meet utopian perfection,” then I agree. However, I think the planning was very good indeed. What you “think” – if we can abuse the verb to mean the mewling ideological yammering like a fucking lobotomized parrot of whatever unthinking dreck you have found in a blog – is of precious little interest, insofar as your capacity for actual thinking and indeed logical analysis is actually negative. As to “utopian” expectations, only some sponge brained yammering ideologue such as yourself would call the failure to secure major known sites of NBC materials “utopian” and not a major security failure. In the same manner, failure to extend security and control looting, from the get go to present is a serious planning failure as it was predicted pre-war by military brass they would need more forces in place. Hand waving this away is mere pitibable political excuse making. Looting and what appear to be guerrilla action including semi-organized sabotage were easily predictable and have had serious consequences for securing a post-war peace and rebuilding. Of course for yammering empty headed ideologues all is fine and sunny in Iraq, it’s “liberal media” that are causing the problem. > [@](#): > > The point of this thread is that \*some people are striving to find every possible imperfection in this war, and they are ignoring all the major aspects that succeeded. I could give a fuck what “some” people in your addled perception may or may not be doing. Your gross stupidity and inability to form a logically coherent argument or even approach The rest of your bullshit is just that, dumb fucking bullshit by a dumb motherfucking uninformed ideologue sitting in motherfucking New Jersey with too much fucking time on his hands pontificating about things he not only is too stupid to understand, but fundamentally knows nothing about. Fucking idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/62 "2003-06-09T13:47:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I suppose our basic disagreement is whether the war in Iraq was or was not good for the world. I think it did far more good than harm. You don’t. \*\* I guess that’s the fundamental problem, **december**. You think it was good, because a bunch of people you have an irrational hatred for got their asses kicked. And your pretend concern for the lives of the Iraqi people is just that. Pretend. ---
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/63 "2003-06-09T13:50:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > Look at [how many decades it took for people to stop seeing Martian canals, after Giovanni Schiaparelli’s initial error.](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_102.html) > \*\* Just for that little remark, I cancel your seat on my yacht trip through the Mars canals! ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/64 "2003-06-09T14:34:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > I suppose our basic disagreement is whether the war in Iraq was or was not good for the world. I think it did far more good than harm. You don’t. I read it in another way. The question is if the end justify the means. It it ok to give false evidence in order to start a war? From reading your ramblings, **december** , it’s quite clear to me that: 1. With friends like you, the GOP doesn’t need any enemies. 2. You will swing and twist arguments around to support your current position. In one thread, you claim that the UN has lost its reason for being, in another, you accuse a poster of being isolationist and wonder if that person think the U.S. should leave the UN. Clearly, your demagoguery is not based on firm beliefs and a moral backbone. Instead, your slick way of debate always skate around things. 3. When proven wrong, you always find something else to use as a shield on which counter arguments can bounce off. When the WMD and the threat proved a moot point, you take the position of a higher moral ground and say that Iraqi people have been freed from a horrible dictatorship. Your concern for the Iraqis is less than becoming, since it so clearly is just another straw you grasp to justify your position. I’ll say ‘kudos’ to you for actually being here, even if your arguments (as with Martian Canals :rolleyes: ) are seriously flawed. When I was doing my search on WMD, Iraq, war, the U.N. ASF last night, there were so many hateful vitriol-spewing posters gung-hoeing for the war that are nowhere to be seen right now. However, I can’t really argue with you. Firstly, because there is no one short of God or GWB who could make you change your mind. That’s OK. The prupose of most debates is not to convince the opponent, but to try to present your arguments to the audience, while at the same time trying to make the opponent look like a babbling idiot. However, you do that so well, yourself, there really is no need. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/65 "2003-06-09T15:19:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*You think it was good, because a bunch of people you have an irrational hatred for got their asses kicked. And your pretend concern for the lives of the Iraqi people is just that. Pretend. \*\* Presumably you are intending to criticize me for what you see as an irrational hatred of all Arabs. In fact, I have a hatred for Iraq’s Ba’ath regime, who [may have killed hundreds of thousands of people. (Their _victims_ happened to be Arabs, btw.)](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030608/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_grave_saddam_030608203150) > [@](#): > > **Saddam’s last victims dug up in Iraqi grave** > > MADAEN, Iraq (AFP) - One by one the last victims of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime, prisoners summarily shot through the head or chest as coalition forces attacked Baghdad, are being unearthed at this mass grave… > > Local people say they saw dozens of prisoners brought in aboard two trucks on April 4 and then executed. > > “We drew up a list of 500,000 prisoners jailed between 1985 and 2002 based on documents found in secret service files of the old regime after the end of the war,” said Sheffi. > > “We have only found the remains of 250 of them.” ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/66 "2003-06-09T15:29:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > **… well [Iraq’s mythical NBC stocks] clearly don’t exist …** Is it really that cut-and-dried? Might not some amount of B&C weapons yet be found? Has enough time really passed to draw any conclusions (my assumption is that US/UK intelligence never actually knew where Iraqi B&C weapons were for any length of time due to constant movement)? This may be more a matter to handle in GD. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/67 "2003-06-09T15:40:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Gaspode \* > The question is if the end justify the means. That’s a good question, without a clearcut answer. When a regime may be murdering hundreds of thousands of people, and when this regime appears to be seeking the means to murder people on an even larger scale, maybe the ends do justify the means. That is, perhaps regime change for the “wrong reasons” is better than leaving them in power. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/68 "2003-06-09T16:03:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*To give credit where it’s due, this was the thought of [Glenn Reynolds](http://www.instapundit.com/). Who cares? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/69 "2003-06-09T16:17:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*That’s a good question, without a clearcut answer. When a regime may be murdering hundreds of thousands of people, and when this regime appears to be seeking the means to murder people on an even larger scale, maybe the ends do justify the means. That is, perhaps regime change for the “wrong reasons” is better than leaving them in power. Why not? \*\* **december** , If you would defend the proposition that good ends justify evil means, then, you are justifying terrorism and many other evils. Civilization is precisely based on the concept that the ends do not justify the means. Otherwise you are defending the notion that president Bush could be assasinated if that would lead to a later good (and, believe me, many people believe it would). The fact is that this was an illegal war and no matter what good it brings it was still illegal and unacceptable. In any case, I know trying to reason with you is a waste of time as you will justify anything and parrot anything no matter how stupid. I still remember the thread where you defended the prisoners at Guantanamo should be considered POWs because you thought that is what Bush would do and then you reversed yourself when Bush said they would not be considered POWs. And your only reason is that you trusted Him to know what was best. We do not need parrots like you. You are an embarrassment. I have decided to make a living will stating that if when I get to your age I become as idiotic as you are someone should put me out of my misery with a well placed bullet. You must be an embarrasment to your entire family. I can imagine them rolling their eyes eveery time you speak. Please think of the pain and embarrassment you cause them. And very especially, please think of the children. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/70 "2003-06-09T16:21:04Z")
I still contend, **december** that your concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians is _absolute bullshit_. You (wrongly) thought that Iraq was a threat to Israel. Now it turns out otherwise. So you prevaricate. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/71 "2003-06-09T16:29:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Presumably you are intending to criticize me for what you see as an irrational hatred of all Arabs. In fact, I have a hatred for Iraq’s Ba’ath regime, who [may have killed hundreds of thousands of people. (Their _victims_ happened to be Arabs, btw.)](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030608/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_grave_saddam_030608203150) \*\* [nitpicky hijack] Some of the victims wrere Arabs, but a significant number were Kurds, who are not Arabs. [/hijack] You may now recommence pummelling **december.** (Who, by the way, rarely shows this level of concern about human rights abuses in places not primarily inhabited by Jews and/or Arabs. I find that interesting.) ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/72 "2003-06-09T16:39:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eva Luna \* > **december.** (Who, by the way, rarely shows this level of concern about human rights abuses in places not primarily inhabited by Jews and/or Arabs. I believe I have written more about the plight of the Zimbabweans than any other poster here. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/73 "2003-06-09T17:08:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I believe I have written more about the plight of the Zimbabweans than any other poster here. \*\* I wasn’t concerned with how often you post about Arabs, Muslims, and Jews in relation to other posters; I meant the proportion of concern you show for the remaining total of people on the planet in relation to the attention you pay to Arabs, Jews, and Muslims. Even if you’d started a couple of dozen threads in your SDMB career about the Zimbabweans, since you are one of the more prolific GD posters, it would still be a small fraction of the threads you’d started that related somehow to Israel, which is, after all, an awfully small country. And that leaves aside all the other places where there have been horrendous human rights abuses, even in the past couple of decades. Southeast Asia? Central/South America? OK, I know it’s natural to post more about countries to which one feels special ties for any reason, but come on! ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/74 "2003-06-09T17:48:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by The Gaspode \* > > The question is if the end justify the means. > > That’s a good question, without a clearcut answer. _Translation:_ “When a person I like uses immoral behavior to reach a goal, that’s fine. When a person I dislike uses immoral behavior to reach a goal, then it’s time for the lynch mob.” I do not doubt for one microsecond that if it was Bill Clinton or Al Gore who was under suspicion of lying to the world about Iraqi WMDs to start a war, **december** would be leading the SDMB’s charge for impeachment hearings and mass resignations. And no, IMO the ends _do not_ justify the means. Ever. None of this limp-wristed wishy-washy conditional bullstuff, you either stand by your principles or you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![MSU\_1978](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac8455/32.png) [@MSU\_1978](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MSU_1978)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/75 "2003-06-09T18:52:18Z")
> [@](#): > > - German intelligence service reported in 2001 that Hussein was three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe. > - Former CIA director John Deutch testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that “we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems.” > > - French President Jacques Chirac declared this past February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that “we have to find and destroy them.” So why didn’t the Germans and French join the holy Bush crusade? If the Germans felt threatened, surely they would have joined. > [@](#): > > # Al Gore declared last September, presumably based on what he had learned as vice president, that Hussein had “stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” > > # In 1998, Bill Clinton described Iraq’s “offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.” Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors at the time “that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.” They may have thought that Iraq had WMD, but they weren’t stupid enough to start a war over it. > [@](#): > > ``` > * Bush allowed 170,000 priceless antiquities to be looted. > * Bush and Rumsfeld used too few troops. > * Bush permitted Iraq to fall into chaos. > * Bush allowed radioactive material to be looted. > * Bush doesn't really want democracy in Iraq. > * Bush lied about the WMDs before the war. > * Bush is lying now about the two mobile bilogical weapons laboratories. > * Bush-supporter Chalabi is lying. > * Bush visited the troops on an aircraft carrier in the wrong way. > * Bush flew over Iraq in the wrong way. > > ``` > > - Bush has bad breath. Well, there _were_ too few troops, which is why the museum got looted (and who cares if early reports of museum losses were inflated?). More importantly, the hospitals weren’t guarded and the radioactive material was not guarded. So you get the peasants dumping out canisters of uranium and using the container for storing water! As for visiting the aircraft carrier in the wrong way- it was a silly stunt and he looked like a boy playing dress-up. > [@](#): > > The list was incomplete. I actually saw two separate articles complaining that > > – Bush showed too big a “package” in his flight suit. Good Lord! I confess I do not look at men down there, others will have to verify this one. > [@](#): > > I have no fucking idea where the fuck you get your dumb motherfucking assertion on saftey and terrorism. I’m so glad to see Collounsbury taking the high road. It isn’t “backstabbing” to be suspicious when a war is started under the pretense of eliminating weapons which later prove not to exist or have existed. It is clear that the intelligence that justified the war was either grossly in error or fraudulent. It is clear that while the US military won the war with speed and competence, the US was completely unprepared to win the peace following the military victory. Either there were simply not enough troops, or there was no coherent after-battle plan, or more likely, both. You cannot justify illegal actions on the grounds that the result is desirable. The ends do NOT justify the means. Nobody disputes that Hussein was despicable, but that does not justify illegal imperialistic military actions. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/76 "2003-06-09T18:55:50Z")
FTR: I think that it’s great that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. I find it sad that he hasn’t been found to be put on trial in an _Iraqi_ court. But no, the end doesn’t justify the means. People are not guilty until proven innocent and you might be a mythomaniac, **december** , and believe the U.S. went to war to save the poor Iraqi civilians from an oppressive regime. But 'tis a great thing we are not allowed to edit posts. Because one only needs to do a search on your user name to find out that prior to the war, your concern for the Iragi people was, if not non existent, then at least very far down on your list of concerns. The things that you were most vocal about was the ‘fact’ that Iraq had WoMD and were clearly on the verge of getting a nuclear capability, which would threat the U.S. and its allies. Seeing that there’s rumbling about going after Iran, next, could you right here and now, for the record, state why the U.S. should do so? Is it to save the Iranian people? If that’s your case, why is it of any concern to the U.S., as compared to China, Myanmar, North Korea, Libya, Algeria? And if the reason is not a concern for the Iranians, what is it then? Does Iran pose a threat to the U.S. or its allies? If you _do_ answer that, which I doubt, I hope you have enough backbone to stand by your conviction, should there ever be such a conflict (and I surely hope there won’t be). Or do you need to wait for the official spin? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/77 "2003-06-09T19:47:10Z")
Apologists for the Bush administration’s military adventurism now seem to be relying on two primary strategies to serve as justification for the Iraq war: 1. _Seizing the moral high ground_: since we don’t seem to be able to find any “WMDs,” let us fall back on the humanitarian argument, and claim that the war is justifiable by virtue of the fact that the US government has rid the world of a terrible dictator. This strategy has the added advantage of implying that those who opposed the war were actually tacitly supporting the terrible dictator, and therefore morally bankrupt. 2. _defending our pre-war stance on “WMDs”_: this involves pointing out that “everyone else” believed that the Iraqi regime possessed “WMDs” before the invasion, and that although this has turned out not to be the case, perhaps, the administration was nevertheless justified in its beliefs, and thus in its actions. **december’s** OP is a good example tactic (2), and I’ve seen similar statements introjected into a number of threads on the “WMD” controversy by war supporters. It is a line of reasoning that I would like to nip in the bud right now, if you don’t mind, for the gratuitous historical revisionism it is. To begin with, one of the main contentions, if not _the_ main contention, of those of us who opposed the war with Iraq was that the US and Britain did not provided convincing evidence of Iraq’s possession of “WMDs.” Anyone who has followed the public debate, and especially the discussion here on these boards, must surely be aware of this. Contrary to **december’s** assertion, many of those who opposed the war were dubious about the line Bush and Co were feeding us regarding these weapons. How many “Smoking Gun” threads appeared in GD during the prelude to the war, only to be debunked one after one – leaving much smoke and no gun? First up was the story from Sky News about an attempt to smuggle “weapons-grade plutonium” into Iraq under the back seat of a taxi cab. Anyone else remember that one? It was followed by the aluminum tubes fiasco; then by Bush’s claim that Iraq was “six months away from developing a nuclear weapon,” promptly revealed as a gratuitous misrepresentation of an old IAEA report; then by claims that Iraq had developed “unmanned drone aircraft” capable of reaching the United States, later shown to be completely fallacious; followed by a British intelligence dossier that included plagiarized material from a 12-year old graduate thesis downloaded from the internet; and then, of course, came the accusations that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, a claim that Bush included even in his State of the Union address, despite the fact that it was based on documents known to be falsifications months before he spoke to the nation. How many times did **elucidator** (and many others besides) ask, simply and straightforwardly, for more substantial evidence before we committed ourselves to war? How many times were these bullshit claims, and others like them, advanced by the Bush administration as pretext for that war, and how many times were they defended on these boards by those who advocated that war? We see now in retrospect that the record shows little more than a long string of misleading, disgraceful, shamefully duplicitous claims by the president. No, indeed, it is a complete _non sequitur_ to argue: > [@](#): > > - The Bush-bashers forget that everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.… One cannot blame Bush for believing what everyone else believed. Furthermore, it’s most unlikely that all these people were wrong.\* How does one even approach this crock of shit? Let’s try by considering the neo-con’s policy of preemptive strike, as articulated in Bush’s “National Security Strategy.” In this document the president pledges that from now on, “_as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed_.” More specifically, “_We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations_ …” > [@](#): > > _ **…defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country…** _ Now, obviously, in order to pursue such a policy in an open and democratic society, the government of the US must provide, at a minimum, 1) convincing evidence that another nation is capable of doing harm against the people of the United States; and 2) convincing evidence that another nation is committed to doing harm against the United States. I submit that the current administration has provided neither. I would like especially to call your attention to point 2. In all the hysteria over Iraq’s so-called “WMDs,” I have yet to see _a single shred of evidence whatsoever that, even if Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons, it was prepared to use them against the people of the United States_. I think this is important because, despite the furor over WMDs, the second part of the equation was (and is) simply ignored in the popular discourse, and especially by the right wing. It as if those on the right believe that, should we find a bottle of anthrax hidden in some forgotten footlocker somewhere, the war would have its final, indisputable justification. But seriously, if the US were to go around sanctioning/invading every country that possessed “WMDs,” we would soon find ourselves at war with the entire world. The mere possession of such weapons is really of no consequence unless there also exists a credible threat of use against the US, a point which those who supported the war either ignored or took for granted. So, even if US forces were to unearth a chemical warhead somewhere in Iraq, we would still be a long way from making a solid case for a preemptive war by the neocon’s own standards of justification. But let’s tackle as well the myth that “everyone knew” that Iraq possessed such weapons. It is not true. Although the Bush administration made such claims over and over again, it is clear that the intelligence community – or, at the very least, a significant portion of it – doubted the interpretation of the evidence formulated by the Bush administration. But why take my word for it? Let’s quote the words of one our least distinguished posters, **december** , who noted on Feb 13, 2003: > [@](#): > > - Then, why is the UN still conducting inspections? Why is there eagerness to hear the inspectors’ report tomorrow? BTW Jojo thinks that Iraq probably doesn’t have any WMDs. I suspect many others in the US and especially in Europe remain unconvinced of Saddam’s WMDs or unconvinced of the full extent of his WMDs. > > ISTM that doubt about WMDs was the approved anti-war position not very long ago. Colin Powell’s speech pretty well vanquished that point. Now anti-war people have gone to the fallback position which you outlined.\* Why, then, you may ask, were those who opposed the war so wary of committing themselves to the claim that there were no “WMDs” in Iraq? Simple: _because we didn’t know._ The only people who claimed to know, who claimed it stridently, with 100% certainty, with no room for doubt, were Bush, Blair, and a handful of other top officials. They were supported by a bevy of pro-war nitwits, squawking the same party line. Pursuant to this point is a second one: certainly, many people believed there existed a body of strong circumstantial evidence that Iraq might possess _some_ chemical weapons, or possibly some biological research facilities, and so on. But only the Bush administration made outlandish claims to the effect that Saddam possessed a stockpile of tons of chemical agents, poised for use against the US, and that its knowledge of these facts were so 100% certain that they justified a preemptive war. It’s interesting that you mentioned Colin Powell’s speech to the UN back then. I would like to point out that Powell’s presentation didn’t convince anybody who wasn’t already convinced; there was at least one long thread in which it was discussed extensively, and there you can easily see that not everyone accepted his conclusions. I’ve taken the opportunity to go back over the presentation again with the benefit of hindsight. I was surprised to discover how tentative and unconvincing his evidence really was. The speech is rhetorically brilliant in its innuendo; you come away thinking you’ve been presented with incontrovertible proof, when really all you’ve been presented with is hearsay. To begin with, Powell moves adroitly between attempts to prove that the Iraqis were violating 1441, on the one hand, and that they possessed “WMDs,” on the other. Note well, these are in actuality two separate issues. Powell mixes them handily, though, so that they segue into one another; evidence that the Iraqis were “hiding something” is therefore automatically taken as evidence that the thing they were hiding was some sort of “WMD.” Consider the following: Powell plays a recording of a discussion between two unidentified individuals, allegedly members of the Iraqi military, and then provides the following interpretation of their conversation: > [@](#): > > **First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, is coming, and they know what he’s coming for, and they know he’s coming the next day. He’s coming to look for things that are prohibited. He is expecting these gentlemen to cooperate with him and not hide things. > But they’re worried. “We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?” > What is their concern? Their concern is that it’s something they should not have, something that should not be seen. > The general is incredulous: “You didn’t get a modified. You don’t have one of those, do you?” > “I have one.” > “Which, from where?” > “From the workshop, from the Al Kendi (ph) Company?” > “What?” > “From Al Kendi (ph).” > “I’ll come to see you in the morning. I’m worried. You all have something left.” > “We evacuated everything. We don’t have anything left.” > Note what he says: “We evacuated everything.” > We didn’t destroy it. We didn’t line it up for inspection. We didn’t turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up. > “I will come to you tomorrow.” > The Al Kendi (ph) Company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity.** Let us assume that Powell is telling the truth with regard to the identity of the two people involved in the discussion. What might we reasonably conclude from this piece of evidence? Well, I submit that we might conclude that the Iraqis had some sort of vehicle which they wished to keep secret, and that’s about it. It is modified in some way – maybe to produce rocket fuel? Not illegal, necessarily, but perhaps something the Iraqi regime prefers to keep secret. Powell asks rhetorically, “ What is their concern?” and then answers for us, “Their concern is that it’s something they should not have, something that should not be seen.” This “something that should not be seen” _could_, conceivably, be connected to weapons prohibited by the cease-fire agreement. But it might not. _We are in fact given no solid evidence one way or the other_. But Powell cleverly insinuates that this is the only reasonable answer to his question, by noting that the Al Kendi (ph) Company is “well-known” to be involved “prohibited weapons systems activity.” But what sort of activity would that be, specifically? Biological, chemical, or nuclear? It is almost redundant to point out that this section of Powell’s report provides us with no evidence of the supposed “stockpiles” of “WMDs” whatsoever. It is, rather, intended to show that the Iraqis are not still not complying with to the letter with 1441, although it scarcely passes as proof of that. But again, Powell conflates these two issues so that a conversation between low-level military personnel is later hooked back into his presentation as yet one more piece of evidence that Iraq has massive stockpiles of prohibited weapons. Here’s another example of the technique in action: > [@](#): > > \*\* Our sources tell us that, in some cases, the hard drives of computers at Iraqi weapons facilities were replaced. Who took the hard drives. Where did they go? What’s being hidden? Why? There’s only one answer to the why: to deceive, to hide, to keep from the inspectors.\*\* Right. We are now to understand that the _only possible explanation_ for some missing hard drives is that Iraq is attempting to hide massive stockpiles of deadly chemical weapons from the inspectors, in order to one day give them to terrorist or use them against the US. Or, finally, consider the satellite photos. In one example, Powell presents us with photos of the Taji munitions dump, and explains that some of the sites at the dump show the “unmistakable” signatures of chemical weapons dumps. But please allow me to ask: if such signatures are so unmistakable, and so easily identified by satellite surveillance, how can we explain our current inability to locate these dumps now, after the war? After all, as Powell states, there are only 65 such sites in all of Iraq. It’s not like you can just hide chemical weapons in a cave; they must be carefully monitored in case of leakage, and so on – hence the “unmistakable signatures.” Well, I could go on, but I have a wife and a jigger of Bailey’s waiting on me. What is significant about this entire debacle, on the other hand, is precisely the warning many of us gave prior to the war, regarding Bush/Wolfowitz’s so-called “doctrine of preemptive defense:” it can be easily employed to justify a war even when there is, in reality, no real threat. Powell’s presentation is just one example of the way in which intelligence can be manipulated to such nefarious ends. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/78 "2003-06-09T20:24:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Gaspode \* > …one only needs to do a search on your user name to find out that prior to the war, your concern for the Iragi people was, if not non existent, then at least very far down on your list of concerns. The things that you were most vocal about was the ‘fact’ that Iraq had WoMD and were clearly on the verge of getting a nuclear capability, which would threat the U.S. and its allies. True. My main reason was a combination of Saddam’s evilness and the fear that he would get nuclear capability. > [@](#): > > Seeing that there’s rumbling about going after Iran, next, could you right here and now, for the record, state why the U.S. should do so? Is it to save the Iranian people? If that’s your case, why is it of any concern to the U.S., as compared to China, Myanmar, North Korea, Libya, Algeria? > And if the reason is not a concern for the Iranians, what is it then? Does Iran pose a threat to the U.S. or its allies? Iran certainly poses a threat to some US allies, such as Israel. It’s a big supporter of Middle Eastern terrorism. According to reports, Iran is a threat to the current Iraqi government. They could be a threat to the US, to the degree that they support al Qaeda. There have been somewhat inconclusive reports that Iran is supporting al Qaeda. OTOH the Mullahs of Iran have not behaved with the recklessness of Saddam. They haven’t invaded several neighboring countries. AFAIK they do not utilize torture and murder on a Saddamian scale. I don’t know what to do about Iran. I think their acquisition of nuclear weapons would increase the risk of horrendous consequences. OTOH I’m by no means sure that war is good idea at this time. > [@](#): > > But no, the end doesn’t justify the means. People are not guilty until proven innocent… I would question whether the rule of “innocent until proven guilty” can be applied to regimes in a nuclear age. Can we afford to wait for a “smoking gun,” if the “bullet” might be a nuclear bomb dropped on Tel Aviv? On preview, I note that **Mr. Svinlesha** has a sensible presentation of the other side of the argument. He says, “I have yet to see a single shred of evidence whatsoever that, even if Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons, it was prepared to use them against the people of the United States.” I’m don’t apologize for our war against Saddam. I’m proud of it. **Mr. Svinlesha** makes a fair point, but it doesn’t convince me. It moves the burden of proof from Saddam to the war-makers. IMHO Iraq’s past bad deeds put the burden of proof on them to prove that they weren’t a threat. In fact, that was the gist of several UN resolutions, including the most recent #1441. It’s also common sense. Why should we take the risk that Saddam might do something horrendous to us? Particularly since, even if the risk was less than we feared, the war would still do more good than harm. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/79 "2003-06-09T20:30:27Z")
Great post **Mr. Svinlesha**! ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/80 "2003-06-09T20:39:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*It’s also common sense. Why should we take the risk that Saddam might do something horrendous to us? Particularly since, even if the risk was less than we feared, the war would still do more good than harm. \*\* **anyone** “Might” do something horrendous to us. My next door neighbor might. He has guns. he has dogs. He has shifty eyes. But in the eyes of the law, I **may not** take aggressive action against him absent a _real_ threat. Not merely that there’s capabilities (which we now see SH didn’t have), or motives/desires (which isn’t clear by any stretch, either, he certainly didn’t like the US, but is there any real evidence that he took direct action against our country? ), but an actual threat (not the presumption of one), and actual means to carry that threat out (not the mere supposition that he might have some stuff, maybe have the means to deliver it), minimally. And I think you’re quite early to judge that the ‘risk’ was less than feared (the damage to our world reputation has yet to be caluculated, unlike the damage to our economy which is just beginning to be tallied, as the costs of the occupation are begun) and that it’s done more good than harm (that nuclear site that wasn’t guarded, it’s going to take quite a bit of time to evaluate the harm from that one. Keep in mind, also that we’ve still got troops over there being killed damn near daily, as well as potentially exposed to the nuclear waste from that site that we couldn’t be bothered with) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323.md?page=5)