# Bush: Iraq Invasion Worth It Despite No Trace of WMD **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489 "2005-01-13T03:29:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/41 "2005-01-13T23:17:11Z")
**CMK** Bush’s premise for the Iraq war were built almost completely upon those WMD, however, this was not enough for the doubters who demanded proof, Bush needed at the very least to weaken their arguments, so he threw up a shitstorm of ‘other reasons’ to prop up the very creaky, and since proven, utterly bankrupt authority of ‘intelligence’. If those other reasons were enough to go to war, then why bother with the WMD ? Why not use those other reasons based upon their own merits ? I don’t remember too much debate at the UN concerning these other issues. Because had these been the only arguments, then it would have been pointed out that such abuses were and are still taking place an an even greater scale elsewhere. Those other reasons were there not out of reasoned logic, or principled determination, they were there to show just what a goshdarned nasty person Hussain is, Bush was pandering to the lowest intellects and wayward emotions in order to undermine the cold hard logic of those who wanted some exceptional evidence of a clear and present danger to the US and its allies. Since there were no WMD, then it stands that those other reasons must now take precedence, so following that logic, when will the US whip up international frenzy and deal with Burma, Zimabawe, Sudan, Eastern Sahara, Congo. None of these nations would present a real military challenge to the US and yet they all abuse human rights, from basic human rights all the way through to genocidal activity, up to and worse than Iraq. None of them are known for their oil industries though, so perhaps those pressing other reasons are not as pressing as they are in Iraq. You yearn for the days when people wished they could take the word of the US President face value, you must be much much older than I thought, and not merely wise beyond your years. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/42 "2005-01-13T23:42:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, only that the other reasons were minor. Very minor. Minor enough that there would have been little, if any, suppor to go to war if they were the only issues. > > No WMDs, no war resolution in Congress. It’s that simple. Thanks, John. I mean it. Perhaps Bush’s Apologists should tattoo the above post to their foreheads, because I’ve never ever seen a more ‘forgetful’ bunch in my whole rather extensive life. See,\*\* Age Quod\*\* et al, _it really is as simple_ as John says it is: No WMD hype = no invasion. As it was and is, WMDs and Saddam’s supposed willingness to use them, were the _only_ possible justification to engage in a war of aggression against a sovereign nation. Reasons are twofold – and both having to do with marketing: 1-To sell the invasion to the American public under the unlikely rubric of clear and present danger. And please, let’s top fuckin’ tap dancin’ around the exact wording – the message came through loud and clear, especially to those gullible enough to give it credence. Unfortunately, too many of you. Personally, I thought it was completely ludicrous from the start. Any, and I do mean _any_, attack on the US that could be remotely linked to Saddam, would bring about the complete and utter annihilation of Iraq – Baghdad, little more than a radioactive parking lot. Think Saddam didn’t know that? Think there’s any world leader insane enough to go head to head VS the mighty US of A? Further, why do you think terrorists work the way they do? Because it is the _only way_ to hurt the US. Unconventional warfare takes your superpowers away much like kryptonite did with Superman – see, if you hadn’t figured it out yet, it brings you down to _their_ level. Say what you will about OBL and Co, but don’t, for a minute, think they are _dumb_. Yeah, they are scumbags and murderers, but they’ve also laid out a _plan_. A plan that I might add, is _working_. For all the neocon fantasies about the ME and dreams of empire, they’ve been amazingly shortsighted in learning how to deal with the fly in the ointment. For if you take the time to read their rather lengthy agenda, you’ll notice that for all the mentions that Iraq and Saddam merit in their planning, there’s an amazing paucity of substance in how to deal with Islamic extremism. Never mind much mention of the actual root of the problem: the obvious to anyone but the wilfully blind, lopsided pro-Israel bias in American foreign policy. Well, that’s not really true, it does get mentioned often – but only to _harden_ the bias. Much more I could write on the topic, but don’t want to get overly sidetracked. 2-An attempt to garner a thin veneer of legality vis-à-vis the international community. Remember, for as much as many of you hold the UN and international law in utter contempt, all pre-war polls showed, at least initially, that a _majority_ of Americans would back the invasion\* only with the approval of the UN\*. So it was indeed important to at least appear to have tried to garner the approval of the rest of the world. When few bought what you were selling, like spoiled children, many of you decided that the UN had “become irrelevant,” that the French were weasels and that you had God on your side. Not necessarily in that order. Mix and match to taste. Thing is – gaasp! – the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Chileans, the freakin’ Polynesians and just about everyone in the rest of the world that opposed this invasion – who also let him know in no uncertain terms with the largest anti-war marches in _history_ – and refused to bite Bush’s lure, were, and remain to this day, **RIGHT**. And I do mean right, as in right down to the aftermath we’re seeing. And yet some of you still have the balls – and ovaries – to keep defending the MF who led you straight into this clusterfuck. Even better, you finally _elected_ the deranged murderous fuck and his acolytes and consiglieri. Fine. Enjoy. But don’t ask for help, understanding or cooperation from the rest of the world. Duck! That’s a HUGE slice of humble pie coming right down the pipe. Enjoy _that_ too. I look forward to the day that the US returns to the community of nations but I don’t that happening any time soon… ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/43 "2005-01-14T00:11:12Z")
Wolfowitz did a nice job of listing the public side of the administration’s [case for war.](http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html) 1. Weapons of mass destruction 2. Support for terrorism 3. Criminal treatment of the Iraqi people 4. The connection between the first two reasons 5. Getting the US out of Saudi Arabia 6. Turned out to be a fairy tale. 7. Is worse now than it was before the war. 8. Continues apace today. 9. Falls apart without 1. 10. Mission accomplished! ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/44 "2005-01-14T01:05:29Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Since there were no WMD, then it stands that those other reasons must now take precedence, so following that logic, when will the US whip up international frenzy and deal with Burma, Zimabawe, Sudan, Eastern Sahara, Congo. Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Somolia… well, that list could get very long indeed. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/45 "2005-01-14T01:34:03Z")
It is time for the Bush apologists to stop quibbling about the “exact wordings”, fishing for some slim loophole. The simple truth is, Bush wanted a war. His reasons were false. WMD. Al QUeda link. Freedom. Democracy. Protecting America. They were all false, no matter what brush the apologists want to paint them with. They were all irrelevant. Bush wanted a war, and any excuse would have sufficed. Maybe he has some sick dream of empire. I for one don’t share that dream. ---
**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:** [January 14, 2005, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/46 "2005-01-14T02:07:14Z")
Does anybody really think Bush (or any president) would actually say a war he started wasn’t a good idea? Under any circumstances whatsoever? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/47 "2005-01-14T02:32:45Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > Didn’t **Scylla** say that the WMDs would be produced by Thanksgiving 2003? No. Scylla said that we should wait until Thanksgiving 2003 and see if any WMDs were found before stating positively that they weren’t there. Scylla still thinks that that was a pretty fair and reasonable rationale, giving the administration a reasonable period of time to produce the evidence that would prove or disprove it’s case. This period of time coincided with the release of the Kaye report on WMDs Jumping to conclusions beforehand would have been unreasonable. Scylla predicted that WMDs would be found by that time. He was wrong in this last. > [@](#): > > At any rate, don’t count on any outrage from the Right. They’re too busy swallowing the propaganda fed them by Fox news and talkradio, or, as my bf’s father said, “Those WMDs are in Syria.” :smack: There’s just no getting through to people who aren’t at home to critical thinking. Excuse me? I don’t see what I’ve said that justifies that last, and frankly I find such sentiments as prejudiced and offensive as you would find it if I misquoted some argument of yours to make you look bad and used that to make some general deprecatory statement concerning gay people. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/48 "2005-01-14T02:53:07Z")
**Gobear** is gay? Not that there’s anything wrong with that… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/49 "2005-01-14T03:51:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Gobear** is gay? Not that there’s anything wrong with that… I’ve got Seinfelf on right now. 🙂 🙂 🙂 > [@SteveG1](#): > > ``` > It is time for the Bush apologists to stop quibbling about the "exact wordings", fishing for some slim loophole. > > ``` As I said in another thread, the Bush-bashers should pay more attention to this “exact wording” thing, if you’re talking about “imminent threat”. The reason I say that is because Bush very purposely didn’t use the “imminent threat” argument. The Bush doctrine is that we cannot wait until a country like Iraq becomes am imminent threat-- we need to strike them BEFORE they do. This, I think, is a bigger concern than if Bush had simply tried to finesse his way through an imminent threat argument. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/50 "2005-01-14T04:16:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The reason I say that is because Bush very purposely didn’t use the “imminent threat” argument. The Bush doctrine is that we cannot wait until a country like Iraq becomes am imminent threat-- we need to strike them BEFORE they do. This, I think, is a bigger concern than if Bush had simply tried to finesse his way through an imminent threat argument. You’re right, Bush set the action point at [“grave and gathering danger”](http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2002/09/02-09-12b.shtml) rather than “imminent threat.” Now we can only hope that the country has learned that such a loose standard leaves too wide a margin for error, hysteria and cynical manipulation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/51 "2005-01-14T04:27:26Z")
**squink** : I doubt it. How often do you hear the “Bush Doctrine” discussed or debated? Even among our highly intellectual group here, almost never. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/52 "2005-01-14T04:40:14Z")
A number of interesting conclusions can now be drawn. The American right is in the interesting position of having the Lumpenproletariat onside (OK maybe not that interesting). Remember all those CNN reports of proud post-WTC sign-ups in Iraq, “Defending their country from the Iraqi threat” Where are they now? Awful silent ain’t they. Proves we can finally put to rest the tired and tattered line of there being “honor” in the US military. It is a day long overdue, that word’s had too much abuse on that continent. Why did people ever believe there were WMD? Moreover, why argue it here? There was never any evidence. I for one oppose universal suffrage, so don’t tell me the arguments on this board are left v right. This one was always empiricist thinkers vs the crackpot credulous. And the liars. Of course there are always those who were indifferent to the conclusions of evidence. The worst of all, those who played along with the story because it was their tean’s line. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/53 "2005-01-14T04:45:50Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > > [@John Mace](#): > > > > Quote: > > Originally Posted by John Mace > > The reason I say that is because Bush very purposely didn’t use the “imminent threat” argument. The Bush doctrine is that we cannot wait until a country like Iraq becomes am imminent threat-- we need to strike them BEFORE they do. This, I think, is a bigger concern than if Bush had simply tried to finesse his way through an imminent threat argument. > > You’re right, Bush set the action point at [“grave and gathering danger”](http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2002/09/02-09-12b.shtml) rather than “imminent threat.” Now we can only hope that the country has learned that such a loose standard leaves too wide a margin for error, hysteria and cynical manipulation. Do you know who John Bolton is? Under Secretary for Arms Control… which means… Anyway do I really have to post the quote again, of him quite explicity confirming the administration’s view there was an “imminent threat?” ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/54 "2005-01-14T04:50:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **squink** : I doubt it. How often do you hear the “Bush Doctrine” discussed or debated? Even among our highly intellectual group here, almost never. Sorry **John** , the radio station played Artie Shaw’s **(You’ve got to) Accentuate the Positive**, and I got caught up in a Norman Vincent Peale moment. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/55 "2005-01-14T04:55:56Z")
Yes **Sevastapol** , I know who Bolton was. He got caught out several times with ‘off message’ comments, and was widely regarded as a loose cannon, so I don’t think you can take his use of ‘imminent threat’ as indicating that the admin as a whole used that argument. Bush himself was quite careful not to use the term. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/56 "2005-01-14T05:13:33Z")
The under fucking secretary for arms fucking control! Making him the administration authority and official voice on what topics _in particular_? promoted! btw. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/57 "2005-01-14T05:15:57Z")
Bush is just synecdoche for the entire administration. As is proper. Bush the man: could **n’t** care less. His personal non use means zip. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/58 "2005-01-14T05:17:50Z")
ooops slipped up with “angry and argumentative sneering” lapsed into “literary and imaginative” scratch ‘synecdoche’ ooh dear, I’ve done it again now, haven’t I, beg pardon? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/59 "2005-01-14T05:25:09Z")
Your fault, **John Mace** : I’ve quoted this so often I have to admit I’m a broken record, but one more time, with annotations: > [@](#): > > **originally posted by George Washington, upon the occasion of his retirement:** > > Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. > … > In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations **(Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Iran)**, and passionate attachments for others\*\*(Israel, Saudi Arabia)\*\*, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim. > So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, **and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.** And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility _ **to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.** _ > As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. > Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. **Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.** ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489/60 "2005-01-14T05:33:43Z")
I’ve checked with the Professional Association of English Majors, and the general consensus is that a “grave danger” is, by definition, a present danger. It is a fact of the moment, one is in grave danger. I think can safely skip any discussion of the meaning of “growing”. Therefore, a “grave and growing threat” means something even _more_ immediate than “imminent”, which indicates a future tense, a danger that is _approaching_. Since the threat never existed in the first place, “grave and growing threat” is even further from the truth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-invasion-worth-it-despite-no-trace-of-wmd/284489.md?page=4)