# 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:** 4
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/61 "2004-10-03T23:33:24Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > 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. I think we may be talking past each other, but with the same outcome, oddly. I think that the evidence for the war was indeed sufficient to justify it. Some of it was flimsy, but the keey question of justification, for me, had to do with Saddam’s willingness to cooperate with the inspection regime. 12 years of experience taught us that we could only expect him to cooperate with an invasion force standing by on his doorstep. The farther away from that large force we got the more evasions and tricks we could expect. I think you are still evaluating the evidence on the grounds that an absence of active useable WMD dispells the justification for the war. To some degree this is true. It surely degrades the case for war. But it does not reduce said justification to 0 IMHO. > [@](#): > > 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. Yea, they had to examine a lot of classified stuff for that report. I’m willing to keep an open mind. I did not, but should have noted that the committee was Republican dominated and they at least had a vested interest in supporting this portion of the report. But all in all, I think the report is a pretty frank examination of the facts. > [@](#): > > 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. Ok, but at the time, the allegations were backed up by evidence. It turns out that much of that evidence was inaccurate. But it is not nearly like Bush made up allegations against some random country and went to war because of them. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/62 "2004-10-03T23:58:07Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > [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._” Still others acknowledge that the senate intelligence committe’s June report was incomplete. More interesting details are [yet to come:](http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/addSSCI_report.htm) > [@](#): > > In February of this year, the Committee voted to expand the scope of its inquiry to look into other essential aspects of intelligence related to the recent war in Iraq: (1) the collection of intelligence on Iraq from the end of the Gulf War to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom; (2) whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information; (3) the postwar findings about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and weapons programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments; (4) prewar intelligence assessments about postwar Iraq; (5) **any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the Pentagon’s Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and (6) the use by the Intelligence Community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC)**. Hopefully, a thorough review of these issues will be completed and the Committee will issue a report on this second phase of our inquiry before Congress adjourns later this year. The absence of this material from the first report led many to call it a ‘white wash’. ---
**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 4, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/63 "2004-10-04T00:58:40Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I think that the evidence for the war was indeed sufficient to justify it. Some of it was flimsy, but the keey question of justification, for me, had to do with Saddam’s willingness to cooperate with the inspection regime. 12 years of experience taught us that we could only expect him to cooperate with an invasion force standing by on his doorstep. The farther away from that large force we got the more evasions and tricks we could expect. And yet, the inspections were working. The inspectors didn’t throw up their hands in defeat - they were making progress, and they wanted to stay and complete their task. > [@](#): > > I think you are still evaluating the evidence on the grounds that an absence of active useable WMD dispells the justification for the war. To some degree this is true. It surely degrades the case for war. But it does not reduce said justification to 0 IMHO. What were the main justifications? WMD and an al Qaeda link, right? Both of those fall apart under scrutiny. While you may be able to cite additional reasons from the authorization bill, I think it’s a mistake to rely on a bunch of “whereas” clauses instead of the reasons presented in public to the American people and the international community. > [@](#): > > Ok, but at the time, the allegations were backed up by evidence. It turns out that much of that evidence was inaccurate. A careful examination would’ve shown it to be inaccurate at the time. IIRC, the Niger forgeries could’ve been debunked with a simple Google search, since they had the wrong guy’s signature. Allowing the inspections to finish would’ve been the ultimate examination: it doesn’t matter how much evidence says Saddam might have weapons, if we can actually _go_ into Iraq and see that there are none. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/64 "2004-10-04T02:41:46Z")
At least one person in the Bush inner circle knew what a disaster the Iraqi occupation would be- none other than Dick Cheney! The New York Times articles themselves are not available from 1991 online, but several sources such as [this one from slate.msn.com](http://slate.msn.com/id/2072609/) give this interesting Cheney quote: > [@](#): > > ``` > If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave? > > ``` So when Cheney worked for George HW Bush, it was well known what a quagmire Iraq would be. How in heaven’s name did they think all of these issues about which Cheney was correct 12 years earlier were not still valid? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/65 "2004-10-04T03:19:33Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Still others acknowledge that the senate intelligence committe’s June report was incomplete. Indeed. I will read the coming report with anticipation. Unless you are advocating a preemptive (preventative) strike of some sort? 😉 [QUOTE] > [@Mr2001](#): > > And yet, the inspections were working. The inspectors didn’t throw up their hands in defeat - they were making progress, and they wanted to stay and complete their task. They were making progress, but the essential question of whether or not we could allow imspections to be our only means of protection was being answered in the negative. Saddam was not cooperating to the extent he needed to in order to allow the inspectors to say with certainty that he had not designs on the creation or use of WMD. Look, this is the essential difference of opinion. You feel that we should not have invaded without definitive proof Saddam had or would use WMD. I feel that we should have invaded without definitive proof he would not develop or use WMD. > [@](#): > > What were the main justifications? WMD and an al Qaeda link, right? Both of those fall apart under scrutiny. While you may be able to cite additional reasons from the authorization bill, I think it’s a mistake to rely on a bunch of “whereas” clauses instead of the reasons presented in public to the American people and the international community. No, not really. I came into this debate in another thread looking at public statements made by the president and his administration. It was only later that I read the Congressional Authorization for war. I realize that whatever source you are using has cherry picked quotes showing that the administration dismissed disent and insisted that no evidence against Saddam’s WMD programs or links to terror (Not necessarily links to AQ BTW) existed. But it has been my experience that going back and looking at the original statements invariably includes such caveats. Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong? I’ll admit that the last time I looked into this sort of thing the topic was more focused on statements about the difficulty of the war and not evidence of WMD. > [@](#): > > A careful examination would’ve shown it to be inaccurate at the time. IIRC, the Niger forgeries could’ve been debunked with a simple Google search, since they had the wrong guy’s signature. Allowing the inspections to finish would’ve been the ultimate examination: it doesn’t matter how much evidence says Saddam might have weapons, if we can actually go into Iraq and see that there are none. Right. The question is how do we get the freedom of access we need to search a country the size of Iraq sufficiently to ellinimate the possibility that WMD might be under the next dune. If Saddam had cooperated more fully as most of the international community wanted him to we could have accepted inspections for some time. But he did not. He did not for years. After repeated use of force he did not. Even after a massive threat of invasion he continued to insist on caveats and provisos. As I said, clearly you think that you could have trusted Saddam Hussein not to be a danger to the region or the United States. Others felt differently. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > So when Cheney worked for George HW Bush, it was well known what a quagmire Iraq would be. How in heaven’s name did they think all of these issues about which Cheney was correct 12 years earlier were not still valid? Darn that Cheney to heck! Darn flip Flopper! [On a more serious note](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec02/vpcheneytwo_9-9.html) here is a more recent interview with Vice President Cheney. “\*Well, Iraq is a related, but obviously somewhat different proposition, and the situation in Iraq is the culmination of many years of effort. Saddam Hussein signed up at the end of the Gulf War to certain UN Security Council Resolutions to get rid of all of his weapons of mass destruction and to allow inspectors to come in and verify that. He has complied with virtually none of the resolutions that have been applied to him. \*” Perhaps, I am just spitballing here, the risks associated with said quagmire became more acceptable? Just as the risks of allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power became less acceptable. I don’t know, could just be me. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/66 "2004-10-04T03:26:24Z")
Appologies for the bad coding. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/67 "2004-10-04T12:02:54Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I think that the evidence for the war was indeed sufficient to justify it. Some of it was flimsy, but the keey question of justification, for me, had to do with Saddam’s willingness to cooperate with the inspection regime. 12 years of experience taught us that we could only expect him to cooperate with an invasion force standing by on his doorstep. The farther away from that large force we got the more evasions and tricks we could expect. Well, seeing as we _had_ an invasion force standing on the doorstep, why didn’t we use that opportunity to the fullest? After all, the inspectors were having pretty good success in dismantling the illegal missiles - you may remember them being bulldozed. (I hope someone videoed that, becuase it will _never_ happen again. This war killed off any chance of a tyrant willingly giving up weapons, ever. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Bush…) The entire idea of SH giving WMD to terrorists was frankly ridiculous (and yes, I said so before the war.) It was based on the assumption that he hated the US more than he loved being dicatator of Iraq. Afghanistan was a fresh lesson in what happens to those who’d support terrorists against the US, and we were supposed to assume that Saddam Hussein was itching to join the Taliban ? To say nothing of the fact that WMD would have been strategic assets of high importance, and even if SH had been supporting terrorists attacking the US (which, as some may recall, he wasn’t), it would have made no sense to hand over control over something so valuable and hard to obtain to people whose actions he couldn’t control and whose objectives (the Arabic Caliphate) he didn’t share. It’s sloppy thinking. ---
**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 4, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/68 "2004-10-04T17:49:41Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > They were making progress, but the essential question of whether or not we could allow imspections to be our only means of protection was being answered in the negative. Saddam was not cooperating to the extent he needed to in order to allow the inspectors to say with certainty that he had not designs on the creation or use of WMD. The inspectors apparently felt he was cooperating enough that they could do their job. What makes you a better judge of Saddam’s cooperation than the inspectors themselves? > [@](#): > > I realize that whatever source you are using has cherry picked quotes showing that the administration dismissed disent and insisted that no evidence against Saddam’s WMD programs or links to terror (Not necessarily links to AQ BTW) existed. But it has been my experience that going back and looking at the original statements invariably includes such caveats. IMO that’s just part of the administration’s strategy of calculated misstatements. They toss out a caveat, then follow it up with a sound bite that lacks any disclaimer. Which part gets played on the news? The sound bite. I don’t think that’s unintentional. > [@](#): > > The question is how do we get the freedom of access we need to search a country the size of Iraq sufficiently to ellinimate the possibility that WMD might be under the next dune. I’d say leave that up to the inspectors. They felt they had enough access to do their job. > [@](#): > > If Saddam had cooperated more fully as most of the international community wanted him to we could have accepted inspections for some time. But he did not. He did not for years. After repeated use of force he did not. And yet, _when it mattered most_ during the leadup to war, he was accepting the inspections. They were proceeding, and the inspectors felt they were able to make progress. It doesn’t matter whether Saddam cooperated 10 years ago if he’s cooperating today. IIRC, he even accepted the previous inspection team, until they turned out to by spying for the US. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/69 "2004-10-05T02:20:56Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > The inspectors apparently felt he was cooperating enough that they could do their job. What makes you a better judge of Saddam’s cooperation than the inspectors themselves? I don’t think I ever said the inspectors could not do their jobs. I said the inspectors could not keep the world safe. > [@](#): > > IMO that’s just part of the administration’s strategy of calculated misstatements. They toss out a caveat, then follow it up with a sound bite that lacks any disclaimer. Which part gets played on the news? The sound bite. I don’t think that’s unintentional. So, Bush is a liar but with infinite powers to influence the media? Odd that. > [@](#): > > I’d say leave that up to the inspectors. They felt they had enough access to do their job. Right. I say we could no longer leave it up to them. > [@](#): > > And yet, _when it mattered most_ during the leadup to war, he was accepting the inspections. They were proceeding, and the inspectors felt they were able to make progress. It doesn’t matter whether Saddam cooperated 10 years ago if he’s cooperating today. Why was this when it mattered most? Why was this not simply when we had a gun to his head? > [@](#): > > IIRC, he even accepted the previous inspection team, until they turned out to by spying for the US. I really don’t understand this. Can you explain to me the difference between inspections and spying? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/70 "2004-10-05T02:24:25Z")
> [@Spiny Norman](#): > > This war killed off any chance of a tyrant willingly giving up weapons, ever. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Bush…) Shhhhh. Don’t tell Khadafi ---
**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 5, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/71 "2004-10-05T02:37:57Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I don’t think I ever said the inspectors could not do their jobs. I said the inspectors could not keep the world safe. What you said is this: “Saddam was not cooperating to the extent he needed to in order to allow the inspectors to say with certainty that he had not designs on the creation or use of WMD.” That’s not what the inspectors said themselves, and I think they’re a better judge of it. Keeping the world safe was not the inspectors’ job. Their job was to provide information that the international community could use to judge whether Saddam actually presented a threat to anyone outside Iraq. If he did not present a threat–which is information the inspectors could’ve provided–then there was nothing to “keep the world safe” from. > [@](#): > > So, Bush is a liar but with infinite powers to influence the media? Odd that. Anyone who has ever watched the news knows they love a sound bite. > [@](#): > > Why was this when it mattered most? Because it’s when we were considering an invasion! Do you disagree that the highest standard of evidence is necessary when starting a “preemptive” war? > [@](#): > > I really don’t understand this. Can you explain to me the difference between inspections and spying? Weapons inspections are for finding out specific facts about the status of a weapons program. Spying is when we put agents in the inspection teams in order to collect intelligence for other purposes. See [http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html:](http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html:) > [@](#): > > Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. “United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors,” the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. “infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency.” Undercover U.S. agents “carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq’s intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources,” wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99). > > Each of the three news stories ran on the papers’ front pages. At first, U.S. officials tried to deny them, but as more details emerged, “spokesmen for the CIA, Pentagon, White House and State Department declined to repeat any categorical denials” (Washington Post, 3/2/99). By the spring of 1999, the UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact by other outlets, and even defended; “Experts say it is naive to believe that the United States and other governments would not have used the opportunity presented by the U.N. commission to spy on a country that provoked the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and that has continued to tangle with U.S. and British forces,” USA Today reported (3/3/99). ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/72 "2004-10-05T05:55:56Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > What you said is this: “Saddam was not cooperating to the extent he needed to in order to allow the inspectors to say with certainty that he had not designs on the creation or use of WMD.” That’s not what the inspectors said themselves, and I think they’re a better judge of it. Well, I disagree with this. Can you give me a quote from one of the inspectors where they said they were able to determine with certainty that Saddam had no designs on the creation of use of WMD? My recollection from the earlier inspector cites was taht Blix was saying that Saddam was increasing his cooperation, but had not yet begun to fully cooperate. > [@](#): > > Keeping the world safe was not the inspectors’ job. Their job was to provide information that the international community could use to judge whether Saddam actually presented a threat to anyone outside Iraq. If he did not present a threat–which is information the inspectors could’ve provided–then there was nothing to “keep the world safe” from. Well, you are right in the first part. That’s why I did not claim the inspectors could not do their jobs. My position is that the inspectors jobs were no longer sufficient. You are, however, incorrect in the second part. The inspectors did not have the means to gather enough information to say that Saddam did not present a threat. They could have determined that he did present a threat, or not. Proving that he definately did not pose a threat would have been beyond their means. > [@](#): > > Anyone who has ever watched the news knows they love a sound bite. Yes, and anyone who has ever tried knows that you cannot tell for sure what the media will use as a soundbite before hand. At least not for very long. If they were so good at controling the media, how has the “they lied” meme gained such widespread acceptance? > [@](#): > > Because it’s when we were considering an invasion! Do you disagree that the highest standard of evidence is necessary when starting a “preemptive” war? But this is my point exactly. They were only making progress because we were seriously considering invasion. And the truth was that even while seriously considering invasion, Saddam continued to try and squeeze consessions from the inspection regime. FWIW I’m not sure that the highest standards of evidence is necessary when starting a preemptive war. The highest standard would mean that some sort of agreed upon adversarial process is adopted where one party presents evidence, the evidence is examined by the other party, which then presents its evidence again allowing for the first party to examine it. I’m not sure such a process is necessary. > [@](#): > > Weapons inspections are for finding out specific facts about the status of a weapons program. Spying is when we put agents in the inspection teams in order to collect intelligence for other purposes. Ok, but if the inspectors are to get evidence from secret military installations and then present it to the governments of member nations, how do you tell the difference? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/73 "2004-10-05T06:12:45Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > > [@Spiny Norman](#): > > > > This war killed off any chance of a tyrant willingly giving up weapons, ever. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Bush…) > > Shhhhh. Don’t tell Khadafi What, you thought Bumble-fumble Bush had anything to do with Libya giving up its WMDs? Sheah, right. > [@](#): > > [**The Iraq War did not Force Gadaffi’s Hand**](http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm) > > Embarrassed by the failure to find Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, President George W. Bush is trying to find another WMD-related justification for his pre-emptive war on Iraq. Bush administration spokesmen have been quick to portray Libya’s December decision to abandon WMD programmes as the direct result of the US invasion of Iraq… > > …In Muammer Gadaffi’s case, this proposition is questionable. In fact, **Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago,** at the outset of secret negotiations with US officials. In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the US government at the peak of the “12 years of diplomacy with Iraq” that Mr. Bush now disparages. … > > …The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration’s achievement in securing Libya’s nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush **completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton.** ---
**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 5, 2004, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/74 "2004-10-05T06:44:18Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Well, I disagree with this. Can you give me a quote from one of the inspectors where they said they were able to determine with certainty that Saddam had no designs on the creation of use of WMD? Of course not. The inspectors were forced to leave before they were finished, and they were there to look for weapons, not thoughts inside Saddam’s head about someday creating weapons. Surely this isn’t what you meant to ask…? > [@](#): > > My recollection from the earlier inspector cites was taht Blix was saying that Saddam was increasing his cooperation, but had not yet begun to fully cooperate. Indeed. He wasn’t as forthcoming as one might’ve hoped, but the inspectors were working around that. > [@](#): > > You are, however, incorrect in the second part. The inspectors did not have the means to gather enough information to say that Saddam did not present a threat. They could have determined that he did present a threat, or not. Proving that he definately did not pose a threat would have been beyond their means. Depends on what you mean by “prove”. I can’t prove there’s no invisible monster living in my closet, but I can sure inspect the closet and get enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that worrying about an invisible closet monster is foolish. > [@](#): > > If they were so good at controling the media, how has the “they lied” meme gained such widespread acceptance? You’re drifting pretty far away from what I said, which had nothing to do with controlling the media in that sense. Why would you think the use of calculated misstatements would allow anyone to put a stop to that meme? > [@](#): > > But this is my point exactly. They were only making progress because we were seriously considering invasion. And the truth was that even while seriously considering invasion, Saddam continued to try and squeeze consessions from the inspection regime. But they weren’t giving in; they were making progress. I agree that the threat of an invasion helped the inspectors, but that only made it more bizarre to ignore the inspections and invade without knowing the status of these alleged weapons. > [@](#): > > Ok, but if the inspectors are to get evidence from secret military installations and then present it to the governments of member nations, how do you tell the difference? I’m really not sure what you’re asking. I already pointed out a major difference, and the FAIR page I linked (which **jshore** also linked for you in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277679&highlight=inspections)) has examples like this: > [@](#): > > The spy scandal badly damaged the credibility of the inspections process, especially after reports that data collected through UNSCOM were later used to pick targets in the December 1998 bombing of Iraq: “National security insiders, blessed with their unprecedented intelligence bonanza from UNSCOM, convinced themselves that bombing Saddam Hussein’s internal apparatus would drive the Iraqi leader around the bend,” wrote Washington Post analyst William Arkin (1/17/99). ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/75 "2004-10-05T15:35:42Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Of course not. The inspectors were forced to leave before they were finished, and they were there to look for weapons, not thoughts inside Saddam’s head about someday creating weapons. Surely this isn’t what you meant to ask…? Well, actually it was. Remember, we are talking about the justification for war. Said justification was that Saddam presented a threat to the world. Specifically in that he persisted in attempting to produce weapons of mass destruction. The problem with the inspection regime was that there were things Saddam was hiding. > [@](#): > > Indeed. He wasn’t as forthcoming as one might’ve hoped, but the inspectors were working around that. Well, you can characterize it that way I suppose. I thought it was more like they were working with what they could squeeze out of him and hoping he would be more forthcoming in the future. Given that we got what we did out of him only with the imminent threat of invasion, I’m not really sure what more could have been done to encourage him further. But we can agree to disagree on this. > [@](#): > > Depends on what you mean by “prove”. I can’t prove there’s no invisible monster living in my closet, but I can sure inspect the closet and get enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that worrying about an invisible closet monster is foolish. Yes, worring about an invisible monster in a random closet is foolish. But worrying about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction is not nearly so foolish. What if the closet in question had indeed had an invisible monster in it a few years ago. What if that monster had actually killed some people. What if even with a massive effort from building inspectors, there was no way to be sure that the monster was completely gone. Would you still want your children sleeping in that room? > [@](#): > > You’re drifting pretty far away from what I said, which had nothing to do with controlling the media in that sense. Why would you think the use of calculated misstatements would allow anyone to put a stop to that meme? I did not mean to drift too far from what you said. You said the administration made only positive claims about Iraq’s WMD. I pointed out that this is not true. You then said that they indeed mentioned doubts, but that they knew the media would only print the alarmist verbage. I asked how far this control of the media extended. My appologies if I took your point too far. > [@](#): > > But they weren’t giving in; they were making progress. I agree that the threat of an invasion helped the inspectors, but that only made it more bizarre to ignore the inspections and invade without knowing the status of these alleged weapons. I disagree. You seem to feel that the inspectors could have accomplished enough to keep us safe even without Saddam’s full cooperation. They did not feel this way, why do you? I will admit that they tended to see Saddam as increasing his cooperation. > [@](#): > > I’m really not sure what you’re asking. I already pointed out a major difference, and the FAIR page I linked (which **jshore** also linked for you in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277679&highlight=inspections)) has examples like this: Yes, I’ve seen those examples before. What I’m asking is what difference does this make? Let’s say that UNSCOM activities somehow fell into the hands of American military personal. Let’s say in some conflict, that information was used to target Iraqi positions. Are you saying that UNSCOM should not have gathered that information based on this? Are you agreeing with Saddam that this invalidates the inspectors work? That they should have been barred from Iraq in 97 because if it? What limitations on the inspectors would you have instituted in order to see that such a thing did not occur? I guess I’m asking this, if we take for granted that the US was collecting information through it participation in the UNSCOM inspections, so what? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/76 "2004-10-05T15:42:49Z")
I can’t understand the point of view that justifies the Iraq adventure on the grounds that the UN inspectors (Blix _et al_) were ineffective. Their negative findings were confirmed by our own inspectors who had plenty of time and eager cooperation on the part of our army which was in charge at that time. As far as what Saddam _intended_, if we use preemptive war based on mind reading, we are in worse condition that 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 5, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/77 "2004-10-05T16:07:20Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > As far as what Saddam _intended_, if we use preemptive war based on mind reading, we are in worse condition that I thought. Yes. If we use that standard, even Jimmy Carter is on the hell bound train: > [@](#): > > I have sinned in my heart ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/78 "2004-10-05T16:17:46Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I can’t understand the point of view that justifies the Iraq adventure on the grounds that the UN inspectors (Blix _et al_) were ineffective. Their negative findings were confirmed by our own inspectors who had plenty of time and eager cooperation on the part of our army which was in charge at that time. Some of their findings were confirmed. Some of the post war inspectors found things the pre war inspectors were not aware of. > [@](#): > > As far as what Saddam _intended_, if we use preemptive war based on mind reading, we are in worse condition that I thought. I’m not sure what this complaint is directed at. Are you saying that Saddam’s lack of cooperation, his hiding of WMD activities over the years, his past possesion and even use of WMD over the years mean nothing? We’re not talking about Jimmy Carter protesting UN inspections of American military facilities. We’re talking about Saddam Hussien. I know it makes the logical analysis of the situation easier to think that they are equivilant, but it does not accurately reflect the reality. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/79 "2004-10-05T16:37:29Z")
> [@](#): > > I guess I’m asking this, if we take for granted that the US was collecting information through it participation in the UNSCOM inspections, so what? You really see no difference between officials appointed by the appropriate world body to ensure compliance with an international agreement and spies from an idealogically hostile nation gathering information to be used in a future conflict? ---
**Author:** ![TheSquirrelfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@TheSquirrelfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSquirrelfish)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/80 "2004-10-05T16:47:55Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Some of their findings were confirmed. Some of the post war inspectors found things the pre war inspectors were not aware of. > I’m not sure what this complaint is directed at. Are you saying that Saddam’s lack of cooperation, his hiding of WMD activities over the years, his past possesion and even use of WMD over the years mean nothing? We’re not talking about Jimmy Carter protesting UN inspections of American military facilities. We’re talking about Saddam Hussien. I know it makes the logical analysis of the situation easier to think that they are equivilant, but it does not accurately reflect the reality. What is the legal difference? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068.md?page=5)