Bush has finally addressed the issue of the missing weapons in Iraq. Of course, his way of addressing the issue is to attack Kerry’s criticism, claiming that Kerry doesn’t know all the facts, and that any person who jumps to conclusions before knowing all the facts shouldn’t be President.
Well gee, Mr. President, isn’t “jumping to conclusions before knowing all the facts” exactly what **you **did when you tried to convince the whole world that Iraq had WMDs?
He had to convince the WHOLE world Iraq had WMD? Wow, news to me. And here I thought the majority opinion was pretty much they they had them. And here I thought Kerry was ALSO on the record as thinking Iraq had WMD…wasn’t he in the world at the time too?
I’m unsure the two are comparable, but reguardless its both political spin and counter spin on both sides so why the shock? Kerry of course jumped on this BECAUSE there is no way to prove or disprove it before the election. Bush of course countered back with this spin laden response/attack at Kerry for ‘jumping to conclusions’ for much the same reason…nothing can be known about this before the election so spin it to your advantage. And all this is surprising…why?
-XT
Can you please post a link to a story with the citation? Thanks.
Never mind. Here’s one:
panache45 didn’t say it was surprising. I think the point is that it’s hpocritical. For the sake of argument, let’s assume W turns out to be right - the weapons were always missing (although isn’t it already a sign of incompetence that they don’t already know?).
Whose mistake was worse?
I understand your point, but I would say that the fact that many of our allies wanted to continue inspections is pretty good evidence that they weren’t sure. There’s a difference between suspecting that Iraq may have WMDs, and claiming to know it as a certainty (especially when one is considering military action). And I would say that Bush did claim it as a certainty, presenting “evidence” in such a way as to make it seem as though there was no doubt.
Doesn’t that beg the question, though? Kerry accepted it because Bush claimed it to be true and ostensibly provided evidence to support that position (“evidence” which later was exposed as being bogus.)
It seems rather like saying, “Yeah, I lied to you, but you’re stupid for believing me.”
True, but my point was that Bush didn’t have to ‘convince the whole world’…much of the world thought it was probably true. And there were other reasons besides not thinking it was true that other nations wanted to drag their feet and continue inspections (indefinitely). Reguardless, I don’t see these two things are comparable.
Well, you know I disagree. I don’t cut Congress or the Senate any slack on this. If the prez is to blame for thinking Iraq had WMD, so are they…they were going on the same data. Bush didn’t tell Kerry Iraq had them…our intellegence organs told the Senate subcommittee that Kerry was on that they had them.
Of course, none of this absolves Bush for taking that and running with it to war in Iraq IMO…thats all him and his administration. Reguardless of if Iraq had or did not have WMD, there was no compelling and URGENT reason to invade Iraq. If the Democrats focused on THAT I’d be 100% in agreement with them. C’est la vie I gues.
Its all spin on both sides.
-XT
I don’t see it as a ‘mistake’ either way (I’m talking here about the missing explosives issue) as far as either sides statement goes…its just spin. Since we don’t and can’t possibly know enough of the facts to make a clear judgement before the election on whether the explosives were there or not prior to US occupying the site, both candidates are simply spinning to advantage. Thats my point. And (at least to me) its militantly unshocking…its exactly what I’d expect, especially in THIS election.
I don’t see it as particularly hipocritical either…not more so than anything else falling out of Bush/Kerry’s mouth these days, anyway. Kerry doesn’t KNOW if the weapons were there or not (nor does he probably care at this point) when the US took control…he’s merely using this to spin it to his advantage and hurt the president. Bush most likely DID think there were WMD in Iraq, and while I think it was a stupid war, if you stick to just that I don’t see the hipocracy here on his part…as far as THAT narrow issue goes. As far as these explosives, Bush probably doesn’t know if they were there or not either…so he’s trying to spin Kerry’s spin back at him, to his own advantage and to hurt Kerry. Par for the course, no?
-XT
It is really frightening to read the garbage that the President is spewing out on the campaign trail. Just mind boggling.
Squink, Bush made Iraq more dangerous, for everyone in there. Way to go.
I would say they thought it was possibly true. But again, Bush contended that it was absolutely true.
I don’t know that that’s true. It’s certainly what the Bush Admin. would like people to think, but I don’t think it’s supported by the evidence.
I don’t think it quite worked that way. We have a much different picture from Richard Clarke and others, where Bush worked with the intelligence agencies behind closed doors, with the intent of building a case for invading Iraq. It wasn’t as you present it at all - the FBI and CIA didn’t just present raw data to Bush AND to Congress, and let everyone form their own conclusions.
Hmmm…I thought that was what they’re doing.
Yes, when Bush says Saddam would still “control all those weapons and explosives and could have shared them with our terrorist enemies”, he also needs to take credit for delivering those weapons and explosives into the hands of terrorists.
XT, you’ve only got a piece of it. We’ve become focused on whether or not Saddam had these weapons, but that was never the big enchilada. Lots of other nations believed Saddam might very well have all manner of nasty shit, but simply didn’t care, certainly they didn’t feel threatened enough to invade on thier own dime. Hell, they didn’t even feel threatened enough to offer to hold our coat while we kicked Saddam’s ass for them!
If they had felt threatened by Saddam, or even feared he was a serious risk to international business, they would have been tickled pink to cheer from the sidelines and make some nominal gestures towards cooperation.
So your insistence that everyone in the world believed Saddam had WMD doesn’t amount to much. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. But clearly they didn’t think it much mattered whether he did or not. Who was he gonna use them on? Iran? Syria? Who cares?
luc: Who was he gonna use them on? Iran? Syria? Who cares?
Note that even Iran and Syria themselves didn’t think Saddam’s putative WMD were a serious enough threat to cause them to support the invasion.
Er…I thought that was kind of what I said. I.e. if you NARROWLY focus on just the question: Did Iraq have WMD or not? Then Bush probably did think that, and so did Kerry. If you broaden that to, ‘Well, they have them…so what?’ then thats a different kettle of fish. I’ve maintained for quite a while that it was stupid for the US to invade Iraq…whether or not they had WMD.
Yes? I agree…and I said as much (though granted I didn’t go into great detail in THIS thread on it).
If you stick to this NARROW issue (which is all that was asked in the OP), then I don’t see the hipocracy…Bush (and Kerry) both thought there were weapons. So?
-XT
To steal another soundbite from the Bush-Cheney campaign, “He’s someone who will say whatever it takes to win the election.”
Kerry’s early statements (when he was running against Dean at least) seemed to show he was pretty sure as well. However, its all spin. Bush can claim anything is absolutely true that he wants too (or any other US president)…its just spin to say he’s pretty sure. Sure enough to stick his neck out at least.
I think its pretty much a slam dunk that there were many nations that wanted to keep the status quo for various reasons. We can put this on hold until after the investigations of the Oil for Food program are completed of course, but even if all the nations come clean there were other reasons for wanting to keep the status quo…or drag their feet as I said.
Well, I don’t want to get into this here, but I think you are wrong. Bush didn’t go to the intellegence community and tell them what to present to congress/senate. The Senate Intellegence sub-committee is supposed to see pretty much the same data as the President see’s. Its set up that way because Congress/Senate is supposed to be our ears and eyes for stuff too sensitive for the the public…and the sub-committee’s in both houses are set up to see stuff to sensative for the full houses to see, but still remain representative of ‘the people’. Kerry was on such a sub-committee, so he basically saw the same data the president saw…without the president somehow massaging said data first AFAIK. If you have actual evidence that he DID do this I’d love to see it as I’m unaware of even the implication this happened (well, of any credible source saying this happened…I remember one time rjung…well, never mind.).
The Democrats have focused on the meme “Bush lied!” about the WMD, and pretty much ignored the true (well, IMO) path of…so what if Iraq had WMD, or if Bush and everyone else thought they did. Why the hell did we need to INVADE Iraq just because they had (or didn’t have) WMD??? As I’ve said before in these threads I don’t think Bush ‘lied’ about whether Iraq had WMD (we’ve argued about this ourselves in numerous threads). I ALSO don’t think its relevant…we didn’t NEED to invade Iraq and tie down so much of our military whether Iraq had Chem or Bio WMD (nukes would be different, but there was zero evidence he had done more than look at how he could start thinking about maybe someday establishing a program to research ways he could perhaps think about making a nuke, blah blah blah). Simple as that.
-XT
Well, you see, Dick Cheney has this mat… with different CONCLUSIONS written on it… that Bush can JUMP to!
I got nothing. Anyway, it’s comforting to know that this administration is so unconcerned with the irony of its statements.