# Bush's explanation of the Iraq "miscalculation" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068 "2004-10-01T17:36:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/41 "2004-10-03T07:56:01Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > I mean that which ever meaning you wish to apply to ‘reconstituted’ in Cheney’s sentance, you still cannot make the sentance anything other than completely inaccuarate. I’m not trying to apply any sort of odd meaning to that word at all. Reconstituted means rebuilt, resurected, or perhaps restarted. Isn’t that what it means to you? As I said before, this quote is from a transcript of an interview. I believe that the sentence itself is a mistatement. I agree with you that as written it makes no sense. That’s why I suspected something was missing when I first read it. > [@](#): > > So, of you believe that Cheney was correct and truthful in saying that El-Baradei’s pre-war position was wrong and that Saddam _had_ **in fact** made ‘active and aggressive’ attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, would you be so kind as to detail what those attempts were? Well, ok, but you are reading the statement wrong. Cheney is not saying that the programs can be proved beyond all doubt. He in fact says that the picture we had at the time is mostly incomplete. He is saying that the administration believes that the portions of the picture we had were enough to justify a belief that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program. This is the portion which is not a lie as you asked. The administration did in fact believe this. Did you think he was including you in the “us”? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/42 "2004-10-03T08:29:37Z")
Here’s another great quote from Cheney: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” – Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/02 ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/43 "2004-10-03T10:26:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, ok, but you are reading the statement wrong. Cheney is not saying that the programs can be proved beyond all doubt. He in fact says that the picture we had at the time is mostly incomplete. He is saying that the administration believes that the portions of the picture we had were enough to justify a belief that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program. This is the portion which is not a lie as you asked. The administration did in fact believe this. Did you think he was including you in the “us”? He is exactly saying that the programs can be proved beyond all doubt. The first sentance admits that not all of the facts are in his possession - “We don’t know how much. We know we have a part of the picture”. The next sentance goes on to say that, included in the facts that are in his possession is that “And that part of the picture tells us that he is, **in fact** , actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.” The claim is not that the evidence is murky, that we don’t really know but, given Saddam’s past history, we think he might be trying to acquire nukes. The claim is that there is factual evidence that these activities are occuring. Now, either that was true, and this evidence existed and can be presented, or the statement was a lie. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/44 "2004-10-03T11:34:49Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I agree and I sympathize with your quest to deliniate the difference between pre-emptive and preventative. However, you are fighting a losing battle. In common usage the words are all but interchangeable. This means that when people talk of the war as being pre-emptive they are not excluding the possibility that it is really more preventitive. Again, I sympathize. I really do. I have some similar pet peeves with the English language. It’s not so much a pet peeve with the English language as it is yet another example from a campaign of calculated mis-statements. > [@pervert](#): > > Well, I disagree. I remember many times Bush saying that he did not know how many if any WMD weapons Saddam had, but that we could not wait to find out. Especially where Nukes were concerned. I see no reason to doubt your memory on this particular point. Yet, what was presented by Team Bush was a different case than this. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/45 "2004-10-03T16:35:15Z")
So…I got this bottle of lemon juice. Well, its not _really_ lemon juice, its _reconstituted_ lemon juice, which used to be lemon juice, but then was made into something else, and then made back into this stuff which isn’t _really_ lemon juice, but just something kinda like lemon juice. Boy, Chenglish is a tougher language than I thought! ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/46 "2004-10-03T17:07:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > made back into this stuff which isn’t _really_ lemon juice, but just something kinda like lemon juice. > > Boy, Chenglish is a tougher language than I thought! Does the label say whether the lemons were originally from “the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat”, or have you been bamboozled into buying 'American process lemon juice substance"? The later isn’t even really reconstituted lemon juice, but rather a mixture of citric and ascorbic acids with some sugar, artificial coloring, and a few brominated fatty acids to give it a lemon juice like cloudyness. The problem’s not with Chenglish; you can thank the FDA for the deceptive labeling practices. ---
**Author:** ![TheSquirrelfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@TheSquirrelfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSquirrelfish)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/47 "2004-10-03T17:58:59Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I tried to give such justification in post #24 to **jshore**. > > I agree and I sympithize with your quest to deliniate the difference between pre-emtive and preventitive. However, you are fighting a losing battle. In common usage the words are all but interchangeable. This means that when people talk of the war as being pre-emptive they are not excluding the possibility that it is really more preventitive. Again, I sympathize. I really do. I have some similar pet peeves with the English language. > > No. I’d say it makes the whole thing a lot easier. 😉 > > Well, I disagree. I remember many times Bush saying that he did not know how many if any WMD weapons Saddam had, but that we could not wait to find out. Especially where Nukes were concerned. Well, I just noticed this post and while they may be almost interchangable in common usage, the words preventative and pre-emptive have very set meanings in just war discussion and international law. Presumably the vice-president of the United States is familiar with this and able to use the correct term, as preventative wars are I believe illegal under the UN charter, not falling under the catagory of defensive. Pre-emptive has the mentioned first shot at a gun fight aspect, while preventative is going down to the training range and starting a gun fight with everybody who looks like they could get good enough to threaten you. Preventative strikes and wars are viewed as somewhat illegitimate, pre-emptive strikes and wars are viewed as excellent strategic timing. Israel is an expert at the pre-emptive strike, and generally has gotten away with it because they had solid signs that they were about to be attacked. Preventative wars would justify using military might to assure that no one compared to your relative power position, and could therefore justify nearly any war, one of the main reasons why preventative wars are not considered just wars. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/48 "2004-10-03T18:56:36Z")
> [@TheSquirrelfish](#): > > Well, I just noticed this post and while they may be almost interchangable in common usage, the words preventative and pre-emptive have very set meanings in just war discussion and international law. Presumably the vice-president of the United States is familiar with this and able to use the correct term, as preventative wars are I believe illegal under the UN charter, not falling under the catagory of defensive. Pre-emptive has the mentioned first shot at a gun fight aspect, while preventative is going down to the training range and starting a gun fight with everybody who looks like they could get good enough to threaten you. > > Preventative strikes and wars are viewed as somewhat illegitimate, pre-emptive strikes and wars are viewed as excellent strategic timing. Israel is an expert at the pre-emptive strike, and generally has gotten away with it because they had solid signs that they were about to be attacked. Preventative wars would justify using military might to assure that no one compared to your relative power position, and could therefore justify nearly any war, one of the main reasons why preventative wars are not considered just wars. When asked, our SECDEF maintained that he was unclear on this relatiely coarse distinction. One wonders what exactly our SECDEF is clear on. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/49 "2004-10-03T19:11:42Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Here’s another great quote from Cheney: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” – Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/02 I don’t know where you are getting these quotes, but could you please find the original speech next time? It would save me some time. [This one is from here.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html) He said a lot of things. Many of the about Iraq. He summarized the administrations case against Iraq pretty well. It is an interesting read. > [@Avenger](#): > > He is exactly saying that the programs can be proved beyond all doubt. No, he is not. The phrase “in fact” is an emphasis in that sentence. Notice the “tells us” phrase? He is saying that the administration believes Saddam is attempting to aquire nuclear weapons. It would be a lie if they did not, in fact, believe such a thing. If they do believe it, however, it is not a lie. **TheSquirrelfish** > [@Simonx](#): > > It’s not so much a pet peeve with the English language as it is yet another example from a campaign of calculated mis-statements. Well, no, it is simply the continuing changing of common usage of the english language. Again, allow me to sympathize with your quest. Allow me to agree with your interpretations of the words and say that I understand the legal and semantic distinction. However, I must also confess to having used one when the other was more correct. I agree that the administration tried very hard to describe the war in Iraq as preemptive vs preventative. I agree that they did so for reasons of treaty compliance. However, I also think they did so because of a real threat. Perhaps the threat does not rise to the level necessary for preemption, but neither did the attacks of 9-11 until they were under way. > [@](#): > > I see no reason to doubt your memory on this particular point. Yet, what was presented by Team Bush was a different case than this. Well, I don’t think so. Look again at the authorization of force in Iraq. It is pretty clear that chemical weapons may exist, but that biological and nuclear weapons are only in the program or development stage. It is easy, as **Mr2001** has done to compile quotes from various administration officials showing that they believed Saddam actually had all sorts of WMDs. But when you look into the original statments the case is much less clear. Personally I think a variety of circumstances led the adminstration to believe the worst estimates of the intelligence community and discount others. They became participants in the “group think” which was pretty rampant at the time. And, FTR, they were not the only ones. There are many reasons to criticize this administration and its handling of the Iraq war. However, lying, pressuring intelligence services, or subverting legal processes is not among them. > [@elucidator](#): > > So…I got this bottle of lemon juice. Well, its not really lemon juice, its reconstituted lemon juice, which used to be lemon juice, but then was made into something else, and then made back into this stuff which isn’t really lemon juice, but just something kinda like lemon juice. > > Boy, Chenglish is a tougher language than I thought! I get into trouble when I respond to your glibness with glibness. So allow me to ask for a clarification as afformentioned glibness obscures your meaning. Are you suggesting that “reconstituted nuclear weapons” are actually some sort of devices? Can you explain to me how the word ‘recionstituted’ in this sentence _“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons”_ is not a verb? Finally, could you put this phrase into the context of the rest of that interview where he was talking about Saddam’s reconstituted nuclear programs? Any clarification you can offer would be appreciated. I am often mistaken about your points. Glibness obscuration I should call it. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/50 "2004-10-03T19:20:43Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Perhaps the threat does not rise to the level necessary for preemption, but neither did the attacks of 9-11 until they were under way. Actually, moving troops into position can qualify as an imminent threat. The presence of trained al Qaeda operatives in the US was ample grounds for continuing to fight aQ. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/51 "2004-10-03T19:26:14Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Actually, moving troops into position can qualify as an imminent threat. The presence of trained al Qaeda operatives in the US was ample grounds for continuing to fight aQ. Philosophically, perhaps. But I don’t think such agents would have constituted “moving troops into position” in a strict legal sense. Is it your impression that spys or sabatours constitute a justification for preemptive strikes? I am willing to be wrong. I am not a lawyer or even very familiar with the UN charter. But I think it has some specific (if interpretable) things to say about what constitutes “moving of troops”. I am pretty sure that 20 or 30 trained operatives in country would not apply. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/52 "2004-10-03T19:33:34Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Personally I think a variety of circumstances led the adminstration to believe the worst estimates of the intelligence community and discount others. I think the main circumstance that led to it was that the administration _wanted_ to hear the worst estimates. They ignored anyone who said Saddam didn’t have WMD because that isn’t what they wanted to hear. > [@](#): > > They became participants in the “group think” which was pretty rampant at the time. And, FTR, they were not the only ones. Is that supposed to excuse them? There were plenty of people at the time saying Saddam had no weapons, or that the trickle of evidence saying he had them was too weak to base a war on. Those people weren’t taken seriously, but they turned out to be right. Group think is something to be avoided, but this administration seems to intentionally bring group think upon itself by ignoring or firing everyone who voices dissent. Now, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying we should excuse their mistake because they succumbed to group think? That’s the definition of chutzpah. It’s there in the dictionary, right after the kid who killed his parents and begged for mercy because he’s an orphan ;). > [@](#): > > There are many reasons to criticize this administration and its handling of the Iraq war. However, lying, pressuring intelligence services, or subverting legal processes is not among them. Are you saying they didn’t pressure intelligence services, or are you just excusing it? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/53 "2004-10-03T19:50:36Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I think the main circumstance that led to it was that the administration _wanted_ to hear the worst estimates. They ignored anyone who said Saddam didn’t have WMD because that isn’t what they wanted to hear. Well, that is sort of the definition of group think. But I think I have shown that they did not “ignore” anyone who said Saddam didn’t have WMD. They discounted them, perhaps. They did not believe them surely. But they did not ignore them altogether. > [@](#): > > Is that supposed to excuse them? If you can find a quote from me excusing anything the Bush administration has done please quote it. > [@](#): > > There were plenty of people at the time saying Saddam had no weapons, or that the trickle of evidence saying he had them was too weak to base a war on. Those people weren’t taken seriously, but they turned out to be right. Well, this is where the issue turns on opinion. I don’t think those saying the war was unjustified were, in fact right. There is a good argument to be made, surely. But I differ when it comes to how far we should have been willing to trust Saddam, his regime, or the inspections. > [@](#): > > Now, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying we should excuse their mistake because they succumbed to group think? Please quote where I posted this, or the part of any post which gave you this impression. > [@](#): > > Are you saying they didn’t pressure intelligence services, or are you just excusing it? I’m saying they did not pressure intelligence services. If we are to trust that a mere absence of hard evidence was enough to let Saddam off the hook for possesion of WMD in 2002, then we should accept that a lack of hard evidence against pressuring intelligence services lets Bush off the hook on this charge. No? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/54 "2004-10-03T20:00:42Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Remember the main purpose of the war was to remove Saddam from power and prevent his regime from developing WMDs. Wait… I thought the main purpose was to find and remove the \*existing stockpiles \* of WMDs… you know, the ones that posed an imminent threat to the USA? The whole part about “preventing his regime from developing WMDs” is revisionist history from Bush. Sadly, the knuckle-dragging voters are buying into that noise. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/55 "2004-10-03T20:10:53Z")
Damn… about 15 of you already posted the exact same thing that I did above. I need more coffee. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/56 "2004-10-03T20:44:53Z")
What amazes me is that, for such a straight shooting, plain talking administration, you need so much restating, rephrasing, and redefining to know exactly what it is that they are saying. Okay, I was lying. It doesn’t amaze me. I see it for what it is - piles of bullshit and miles of apologists. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/57 "2004-10-03T21:12:22Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Well, this is where the issue turns on opinion. I don’t think those saying the war was unjustified were, in fact right. That’s not what I said. I said the people who thought the evidence for Saddam’s possession of WMD was missing or insufficient turned out to be right. > [@](#): > > There is a good argument to be made, surely. But I differ when it comes to how far we should have been willing to trust Saddam, his regime, or the inspections. Obviously we should’ve trusted them more than we did, right? Look where we got by relying on our own suspicions instead of anyone who might actually know the truth. > [@](#): > > I’m saying they did not pressure intelligence services. [Others say they did.](http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0306/05/nation-184523.htm) > [@](#): > > If we are to trust that a mere absence of hard evidence was enough to let Saddam off the hook for possesion of WMD in 2002, then we should accept that a lack of hard evidence against pressuring intelligence services lets Bush off the hook on this charge. No? No. There was a process underway to discover whether or not Saddam had WMD, and Bush aborted it - he was not interested in hard evidence. If there had been a process underway to discover whether the Bushites had pressured intelligence services, and Bush’s critics had somehow aborted it, then that might’ve been analogous. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/58 "2004-10-03T22:28:16Z")
> [@I Love Me](#): > > Wait… I thought the main purpose was to find and remove the \*existing stockpiles \* of WMDs… you know, the ones that posed an imminent threat to the USA? > > The whole part about “preventing his regime from developing WMDs” is revisionist history from Bush. No, it is not. go and read the joint resolution authorizing force. I linked to it in post #24 and provided some of the relevant information. At the very least, stopping Saddam from developing WMD was a very prominent purpose of the war. I’m willing to back off of my “the main purpose” wordage. I did not mean to imply that it was the only purpose of note. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/59 "2004-10-03T22:37:44Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > That’s not what I said. I said the people who thought the evidence for Saddam’s possession of WMD was missing or insufficient turned out to be right. Oh. Your quote indicated that you included the people who thought the evidence was too weak to support war were right. > [@](#): > > [Others say they did.](http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0306/05/nation-184523.htm) [Still others](http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf) are not so sure. [Here](http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf) are the conclusions to that report. To wit: “_The committee found no evidence that the ICs mischaracterization or exageration of the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities was the result of political pressure._” If you are willing to give Saddam a pass because there was no evidence, then you have to do so for the administration, no? > [@](#): > > No. There was a process underway to discover whether or not Saddam had WMD, and Bush aborted it - he was not interested in hard evidence. If there had been a process underway to discover whether the Bushites had pressured intelligence services, and Bush’s critics had somehow aborted it, then that might’ve been analogous. Perhaps, but we are talking about your valuation of hard evidence. If you say that Bush is wrong because he did not look hard enough for hard evidence, then you must hold yourself to that standard as well, no? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/60 "2004-10-03T23:00:43Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Oh. Your quote indicated that you included the people who thought the evidence was too weak to support war were right. Correct. What you said was “I don’t think those saying the war was unjustified were, in fact right”, and maybe I misinterpreted what you meant by “unjustified”. I believe that the people who thought the evidence was too weak to support war were right. The evidence was known to be flimsy at the time, and if the inspectors had been allowed to continue, we would’ve known there was nothing to find before we invaded. > [@](#): > > [Still others](http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf) are not so sure. [Here](http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf) are the conclusions to that report. To wit: “_The committee found no evidence that the ICs mischaracterization or exageration of the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities was the result of political pressure._” Very well. I find it interesting that the explanations for the conclusions in the report are all blacked out, but I’ll accept that conclusion in the absence of evidence to discredit it. > [@](#): > > Perhaps, but we are talking about your valuation of hard evidence. If you say that Bush is wrong because he did not look hard enough for hard evidence, then you must hold yourself to that standard as well, no? Again, intentionally _stopping_ a process that would produce evidence is different from listening to an allegation that isn’t yet backed up by evidence. The latter is evidence of an open, perhaps cynical, mind; the former is evidence of a closed mind that doesn’t even want to know about contrary facts. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hold the justifications for a war to the highest possible standard. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068.md?page=4)