# Bush "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728 "2003-07-15T20:17:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [July 16, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/61 "2003-07-16T14:28:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mockingbird \* > \*\*You’re serious, aren’t you? > > You think being caught in a lie by the people is partisan garbage? > > Wow. I see some partisan leaning, and I see it from you. \*\* Are **you** so partisan that you can’t imagine that my intent was that partisanship would be knee deep on **both** sides of the aisle? Republicans won’t ciritcize the president and Democrats won’t praise him. ---
**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:** [July 16, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/62 "2003-07-16T14:34:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Col wrote: > All important, however symbolic events tend to act as levers where there is doubt / concern growing on an issue. > > If that is the case in re Bush’s veracity on Iraq, this can become a symbolic lever, itself unimportant but a hook to hang one’s concerns on. > > As such, it has legs. Could happen. If you look at the difference between Clinton and Bush, though, most people had determined early on that Clinton was a typical lawyer, always parsing the truth (I tried it once, but didn’t inhale; etc.). And we never really got desensitized to it. Each lawyerly remark seemed to build on the previous ones. Bush, on the other hand, is generally seen as a sincere guy. Of course this **could** change if any of these current issues gets traction with the public. But it could just as easily backfire if the Dems are seen as ---
**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:** [July 16, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/63 "2003-07-16T14:35:19Z")
…if the Dems are seen as mean spirited. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/64 "2003-07-16T14:49:55Z")
Mace my man > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*Could happen. If you look at the difference between Clinton and Bush, though, most people had determined early on that Clinton was a typical lawyer, always parsing the truth (I tried it once, but didn’t inhale; etc.). And we never really got desensitized to it. Each lawyerly remark seemed to build on the previous ones. Bush, on the other hand, is generally seen as a sincere guy. Of course this **could** change if any of these current issues gets traction with the public. But it could just as easily backfire if the Dems are seen as \*\* No, you miss my point slightly. The misspeaking may play into Bush’s own public image weakness, not lying and lawyering words, but being dim, a rube, unable to master issues, track facts… etc. As I noted, if it appears Belief more than Reality drove the issue, that goes to existing perceptions and turns them negative. ---
**Author:** ![MeanJoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanjoe/32/5693_2.png) [@MeanJoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanJoe)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/65 "2003-07-16T15:04:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Revtim \* > \*\*The sad part is that a president can say “black is white” and those who happen to belong to his party will either swallow it without thinking or twist and squirm their brains until they can wrap it around the concept. > > No, can’t ever start to think my guy was wrong… The other politicians are the bad guys, but this guy, he’s different… \*\* _hands **Revtim** a smaller paintbrush_ Care to try with this one instead, it is not quite as broad as the one you’ve been using. MeanJoe - One of “those” who belong to his party but happens to think for himself. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/66 "2003-07-16T15:50:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > Are **you** so partisan that you can’t imagine that my intent was that partisanship would be knee deep on **both** sides of the aisle? Republicans won’t ciritcize the president and Democrats won’t praise him. Yes, I would definitely agree with the assessment that it will take knee-deep partisanship to accuse the president of any wrongdoing:rolleyes: Are you practicing to be a leaky cess pool or is this a gift from some higher power? ---
**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:** [July 16, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/67 "2003-07-16T16:05:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*Yes, I would definitely agree with the assessment that it will take knee-deep partisanship to accuse the president of any wrongdoing:rolleyes: > > Are you practicing to be a leaky cess pool or is this a gift from some higher power? \*\* Do you know how to read? How did you get “accuse the president of wrongdoing” from “won’t praise him”. If you can’t tell why the latter is partisanship, but the former is not necesarily so, then I give up. ---
**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:** [July 16, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/68 "2003-07-16T16:10:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Col wrote: > No, you miss my point slightly. > > The misspeaking may play into Bush’s own public image weakness, not lying and lawyering words, but being dim, a rube, unable to master issues, track facts… etc. Agreed. If the Dems can actually get the voters to believe that Bush’s lack of analytical skills is damaging to the country, then they win. But that’s a very hard thing to do, and is as likely to backfire as it is to work. ---
**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:** [July 16, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/69 "2003-07-16T16:15:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MeanJoe \* > \*\*_hands **Revtim** a smaller paintbrush_ > > Care to try with this one instead, it is not quite as broad as the one you’ve been using. > > MeanJoe - One of “those” who belong to his party but happens to think for himself. \*\* Unless that brush is big enough to paint most people in both parties, it ain’t big enough for the job my friend. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/70 "2003-07-16T16:16:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MeanJoe \* > \*\* > MeanJoe - One of “those” who belong to his party but happens to think for himself. > \*\* **SimonX** another one of “those” who belong to his party but happens to think for himself, (and a couple of others). ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/71 "2003-07-16T16:26:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*Agreed. If the Dems can actually get the voters to believe that Bush’s lack of analytical skills is damaging to the country, then they win. But that’s a very hard thing to do, and is as likely to backfire as it is to work. \*\* I’m beginning to wonder about the likelihood of that strategy working. In the past, recent past, I’ve been pretty dubious of the idea that anything could derail the war party. However, I’ve recently had a conversation w/ a fella, who’s a longtime Rush listener, O’reilly fan. He’s also a WWII vet and in his mid-seventies. In the past year, he’s gone from an admant Bush fan and war supporter to a Bush detractor and has come to have grave reservations about the invasion of Iraq. If he has changed his mind, then I suspect that others have as well. I’m still not sure if enough people’ll shange their minds to make a difference in Bush getting elected to another term as PotUS. But, i think that it is a gretaer probability than before. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/72 "2003-07-16T16:34:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \*It is an indisputable fact that SH refused the latest round of inspections until the US readed forces for war. Yes. The presence of anything left to inspect, or its significance as a threat to the US, is in doubt, though. > [@](#): > > Were we supposed to to keep our forces on full alert near Iraq indefinitely, as there is no reason to believe that SH would have allowed inspections to continue indefinitely? In fact, if the presence of the troops was having the desired effect, as you said in the previous damn sentence, yes. Why not? Are you seriously advancing the August 1914 Schlieffen Plan argument, that plans once started can’t be changed if it’s inconvenient? > [@](#): > > Terms of the first Gulf War did not have an expiration date. Nor do UN resolutions normally - but that’s their call, not ours. > [@](#): > > Hey, I was not in favor of going to war with Iraq, because I did not believe Iraq was a significant threat to the US. But I do believe we were justified in doing so based on SH’s behavior since the Gulf War. It isn’t your call either, or mine. > [@](#): > > Do you believe that Bush is denying that inspectors did not, in the end, get into Iraq after we readied our forces for war? Do you think he “forgot”? In effect, yes. > [@](#): > > Or do you think, as is much more reasonable, that you are putting his words under a microscope and misinterpreting what was meant? That depends on what the meaning of “meant” is. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/73 "2003-07-16T16:57:00Z")
**iampunha** > [@](#): > > Are you practicing to be a leaky cess pool [Moderator Hat ON] Cool it, iampunha. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/74 "2003-07-16T17:15:35Z")
Ah, my apologies **John Mace** et al. for that. Forgot myself for a bit. ---
**Author:** ![unwashed\_brain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/a9adbd/32.png) [@unwashed\_brain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unwashed_brain)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/75 "2003-07-16T17:25:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*Simon: > And I’m just not ready to pounce on Bush everytime he says something that might be interpreted as being deceitful. What is the point here? Do you believe that Bush is denying that inspectors did not, in the end, get into Iraq after we readied our forces for war? Do you think he “forgot”? Or do you think, as is much more reasonable, that you are putting his words under a microscope and misinterpreting what was meant? \*\* I agree with this guy. I thought McClellan did a fine job of conveying Bush’s intended meaning when asked about the statement in question. No big deal. There were plenty of other great reasons to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The fact that our primary stated reason for doing so turned out to be false or at best inconclusive doesn’t bother me at all. I’m in the camp that thinks it should have been done during the Persian Gulf War. Better late than never. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/76 "2003-07-16T17:41:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by unwashed brain \* > \*\* The fact that our primary stated reason for doing so turned out to be false or at best inconclusive doesn’t bother me at all. I’m in the camp that thinks it should have been done during the Persian Gulf War. Better late than never. \*\* So if untruths were necessary to achieve the consent of the governed in reference to the invasion, you think that is an acceptable SOP for a presidential admin? Would it be okay w/ you if a presidential admin had to have a misled public in order for the republic to consent? ---
**Author:** ![unwashed\_brain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/a9adbd/32.png) [@unwashed\_brain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unwashed_brain)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/77 "2003-07-16T18:17:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\*So if untruths were necessary to achieve the consent of the governed in reference to the invasion, you think that is an acceptable SOP for a presidential admin? > Would it be okay w/ you if a presidential admin had to have a misled public in order for the republic to consent? \*\* Cynical as it may sound, the governed should have enough sense to not rely on politicians for unbiased information concerning the issues at hand. Behind every word lies an agenda, right? I agreed with the administration that Saddam should be deposed - WMD’s or no WMD’s. Hussein was a despicable tyrant and I think it’s a Good Thing that he’s no longer in power. ---
**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:** [July 16, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/78 "2003-07-16T18:18:27Z")
Actually, the Niger deal was not the **primary** reason. It was one samll piece of the Nukes issue. Bio and Chem weapons were as much of a concern. [Note that the Brits are still saying that they do not disavow the Niger info.](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030716/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_weapons_britain_us_1) Iampunha: Apology accepted. You might want to ask questions for clarification in the future rather than assume you know what someone else is thinking. But don’t sweat it. I didn’t take it personally. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/79 "2003-07-16T19:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by unwashed brain \* > \*\*Cynical as it may sound, the governed should have enough sense to not rely on politicians for unbiased information concerning the issues at hand. Behind every word lies an agenda, right? > \*\* The electorate’s responsibilities to vet information that they receive do not relieve the government of its responsibilities to the electorate. As such, there still remains the question of whether or not you think it’s an acceptable for a presidential admin to mislead the public? ---
**Author:** ![unwashed\_brain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/a9adbd/32.png) [@unwashed\_brain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unwashed_brain)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728/80 "2003-07-16T19:46:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > **The electorate’s responsibilities to vet information that they receive do not relieve the government of its responsibilities to the electorate.** Yeah, but we elected them, so ultimately isn’t the electorate to blame? Get out and vote, people! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > As such, there still remains the question of whether or not you think it’s an acceptable for a presidential admin to mislead the public? \*\* In this case, yes. Every situation is different, and therefore I am unwilling to provide the blanket generalization you are seeking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-we-gave-him-a-chance-to-allow-the-inspectors-in-and-he-wouldnt-let-them-in/188728.md?page=5)