# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/101 "2004-10-06T05:03:31Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > And yet, you are willing to suggest that Saddam’s allowing inspectors to return only after a significant threat of invasion amounts to complete innocence on his part. Odd, that. I find your use of the smiley a bit confusing. Is that a humorous way of acknowledging that I never said any such thing? > [@](#): > > …After this war, as well, we found many things that Saddam had hidden from us… In your haste to provide clarity, you have neglected to include specifics. What, precisely, were these “many things” that we have found that Saddam had hidden from us, aside from the demonstrated fact that his dreadfully threatening military machine couldn’t have taken Belgium in a fair fight. Since there are “many”, could we have, say, half a dozen of the most scary? In your estimation, of course. > [@](#): > > …Even if it did occur, it was only the lates in excuses he used to try and get out from under the inspections without ever cooperating with them… Except that it is a perfectly _valid_ excuse, one that any sovereign nation would find objectionable. A perfectly valid excuse that we provided him. After subverting a UN mission to our own ends, we are hardly in a position to claim righteous indignation if he is less than cooperative, even if we cross our hearts and pinky promise that we won’t never ever do it again. A lot of people would think that demanding a privilege to make the rules, then break the rules, and then insist on being empowered to enforce the rules is, as our limey cousins have it, a bit “shirty”. Not the done thing, if one claims to be wearing the white hat, and all. Unless we are simply stating “We don’t care, we don’t _have_ to care, we’re the Americans, fuck you.” ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/102 "2004-10-06T05:35:54Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I find your use of the smiley a bit confusing. Is that a humorous way of acknowledging that I never said any such thing? No, it is simply acknowledging that our jibes are humorous. I asked in another thread if you were able to take this sort of thing. If not please tell me. > [@](#): > > In your haste to provide clarity, you have neglected to include specifics. What, precisely, were these “many things” that we have found that Saddam had hidden from us, aside from the demonstrated fact that his dreadfully threatening military machine couldn’t have taken Belgium in a fair fight. Since there are “many”, could we have, say, half a dozen of the most scary? In your estimation, of course. No need for a dozen. I think we only need one. [But just for you,](http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html) I’ll point to this Statement by David Kay in October 2003. _We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN._" [I would also point your attention to this interview from General Zinni.](http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040425/news_mz1e25zinni.html) “\*I believed that Saddam Hussein was trying to pull a fast one on the U.N. inspectors in that he wanted them to give him a clean bill of health because they couldn’t find a smoking gun. In other words, a stockpile. And I don’t believe he had a stockpile. What he was very cleverly doing was building a framework that could start a program once he came out of sanctions. \*” > [@](#): > > Except that it is a perfectly _valid_ excuse, one that any sovereign nation would find objectionable. After saying that you never claimed Iraq was innocent, I find it interesting that you are now, in the same post, trying to equate Iraqs acceptance, or not, of UN weapons inspectors to “any nation”. > [@](#): > > A perfectly valid excuse that we provided him. After subverting a UN mission to our own ends, we are hardly in a position to claim righteous indignation if he is less than cooperative, even if we cross our hearts and pinky promise that we won’t never ever do it again. I disagree entirely. I ask again, what is the difference between what the weapons inspectors were there to do (and I assume you agree Saddam was compelled to allow them to do) and what the spies did? > [@](#): > > A lot of people would think that demanding a privilege to make the rules, then break the rules, and then insist on being empowered to enforce the rules is, as our limey cousins have it, a bit “shirty”. Not the done thing, if one claims to be wearing the white hat, and all. Perhaps when dealing with honest neighbors, or with cold war opponents. But when enforcing a cease fire which was flouted often by Iraq, I don’t think he can claim the moral equivilance of these situations. For the record I have not given much thought to whether or not it was a good idea to engage in spying activities through UNSCOM. But I think it is incredible that we are seriously talking about letting Saddam off of the hook because of it. In the American system of jurisprudence we sometimes allow a guilty man go free because of misconduct by law enforcement. This principle is flawed in some instances. Applying it to international relationships is simply not possible. > [@](#): > > Unless we are simply stating “We don’t care, we don’t _have_ to care, we’re the Americans, fuck you.” There’s the bile that I’m used to from you. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/103 "2004-10-06T09:35:39Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > …After saying that you never claimed Iraq was innocent, I find it interesting that you are now, in the same post, trying to equate Iraqs acceptance, or not, of UN weapons inspectors to “any nation”… and > [@](#): > > …I disagree entirely. I ask again, what is the difference between what the weapons inspectors were there to do (and I assume you agree Saddam was compelled to allow them to do) and what the spies did?.. The inspectors were, ostensibly, working on behalf of the UN, presumed to be a neutral party who’s findings might be credibly relied upon by the community of nations as a means of determining the merits of the case. It may escape your grasp, but spying on behalf of the United States, however meritorious, is precisely _not_ what a neutral party is expected to do. It is a hypocrisy of galactic proportions, and, much worse, it gives a very bad man an entirely legitimate objection. As an analogy, it wouldn’t have been necessary to falsify evidence to convict Charlie Manson. To do so undermines the legitimacy of the prosecution. There are rules. We are expected to play by those rules. One of which is, obviously, must be that a neutral party must be, in fact, neutral. To successfully conduct a “war on terror”(which, you may recall, this was ostensibly all about…), we will need the cooperation, sympathy, and respect of the world at large. Displaying open contempt and disdain for the opinions of the community of nations is unlikely to be persuasive. Nor should it be. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/104 "2004-10-06T10:07:15Z")
**pervert** , you may find the following interesting… > **[Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines](https://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=%2Fap%2F20041006%2Fap_on_re_mi_ea%2Fus_iraq&cid=540&ncid=716)** > > The latest news and headlines from Yahoo! News. Get breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos. wherein the following quote from Scott McClellan, chief pander… > [@](#): > > …The report will continue to show that he was a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was _going to begin_ pursuing those weapons of mass destruction," McClellan said… (emphasis added in dreary resignation) Note the clairovoyant use of the future tense: “…he was _going to begin_ pursuing…”. The article continues with a brief summary of the McLies served up to the American people. You will most likely find that tiresome, and are advised to pick up your little basket and skip along, skip along. Oh, almost forgot… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/105 "2004-10-06T14:38:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The inspectors were, ostensibly, working on behalf of the UN, presumed to be a neutral party who’s findings might be credibly relied upon by the community of nations as a means of determining the merits of the case. It may escape your grasp, but spying on behalf of the United States, however meritorious, is precisely _not_ what a neutral party is expected to do. It is a hypocrisy of galactic proportions, and, much worse, it gives a very bad man an entirely legitimate objection. No, as a political problem I agree entirely that inappropriate actions by American members of the inpsection teams were a bad idea. My question is how do you tell the difference between bad activities and good activities? Can you only tell when the information is used? If so, it seems Saddam had a foolproof out. All he had to do was claim that certain information could be used as inappropriately gathered espionage and he could have prevented the inspectors from doing lots of things. > [@](#): > > As an analogy, it wouldn’t have been necessary to falsify evidence to convict Charlie Manson. To do so undermines the legitimacy of the prosecution. There are rules. We are expected to play by those rules. One of which is, obviously, must be that a neutral party must be, in fact, neutral. I don’t understand this analogy at all. Are you saying that the inpsectors or the spies were falsifying information? I haven’t seen that claim before. > [@](#): > > To successfully conduct a “war on terror”(which, you may recall, this was ostensibly all about…), we will need the cooperation, sympathy, and respect of the world at large. Displaying open contempt and disdain for the opinions of the community of nations is unlikely to be persuasive. Nor should it be. Uh, what? What exactly about this particular issue is “Displaying open contempt and disdain for the opinions of the community of nations…”? > [@](#): > > **pervert** , you may find the following interesting… > > [Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...id=540&ncid=716) Well, the lies mentioned are from the Cheney interview we disected above. I will let that analysis stand. Additionally they pulled a few quotes from [this speech](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) given by the president on October 7th 2002. It lays out very strongly what the administration feels are the threats posed by Saddam Hussein. It seems to state pretty clearly that the administration feels Saddam has stockpiles of chemical and biological WMD. The specifics seem to deal more with amounts produced some time ago and never fully accounted for. Soem interesting information, though. I will be interested in seeing the final report from the weapons inspectors due to be presented today. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/106 "2004-10-06T14:48:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Note the clairovoyant use of the future tense: “…he was _going to begin_ pursuing…”. Haven’t you heard the RNC-approved spin? Saddam \*himself \* was a Weapon of Mass Destruction. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/107 "2004-10-06T15:46:00Z")
Now that you mention it, I _do_ remember that golden dollop of horseshit. That was a Condi, yes? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/108 "2004-10-06T15:49:30Z")
And a Giuliani, right after the first debate. ---
**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 6, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/109 "2004-10-06T16:06:35Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > He issued clarification because his remarks were not reporduced in context. Are you saying that they were? > > Well, they do when Senetors press them for such remarks. But just for the record, Shinseki’s retirment had been anounced in the press long before the remarks in question. He and Rumsfeld had tangled over changes Rumsfeld wanted to make in the Army which Shinseki objected to. Seriously, I am having enough trouble looking up cites for the other parts of this thread. Can we agree not to agree on this? I think we can agree to disagree on all points. I don’t know whether or not his remarks were reproduced in context and you haven’t given any cites to the transcript and I, like you, haven’t found any yet. All news agencies seem to agree on what he said, namely that we didn’t act quickly enough to stop post-“liberation” looting and that we lacked sufficient troops to adequately police the country after all of the native police functions were destroyed. Also that he had asked for more troops but had been insistent enough in the asking. I have trouble crediting that all of the news agencies are quoting him out of context. Bush also said that he relies on military commanders for troop levels. That’s crap. I don’t believe there has ever been a military commander who thought he couldn’t use more forces when the job was to attack an area thought to be defended. Military commanders get the forces allocated to them by higher headquarters based on the local commander’s estimates. If the estimates exceed the available number the local commander makes do with what is allocated. Rummy was well known to believe in the small, agile and heavily armored force concept using all the latest lasers, smart weapons and other bells and whistles available today. That was obviously adequate to defeat an Iraq army that melted away without much resistance, but not adequate to police Iraq then, or now. As to Shinseki, yes he and Rummy didn’t see eye to eye on force levels in general and his retirement was announced way in advance. Of course the ultimate retirement of _any_ Chief of Staff can be announced on the day he or she assumes the office. However it remains a fact that Shinseki retired early and that happened right after he said that more troops in Iraq would be required than were allocated by Rummy. But as you say we disagree, and apparently always will, on the wisdom and necessity of our invasion of Iraq and the general obfuscation and seesawing of administration folks on the matter. ---
**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 6, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/110 "2004-10-06T16:09:11Z")
And besides, we’ve all got to remember that this job in Iraq is really, really, really, really HARD! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/111 "2004-10-06T16:16:54Z")
Nothing new: > [@Dubya](#): > > This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating. No shit. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/112 "2004-10-07T00:02:19Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Soem interesting information, though. I will be interested in seeing the final report from the weapons inspectors due to be presented today. [Here](http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html) is the report, and [url=]here is the N.Y. Times article about it entitled “U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03”: > [@](#): > > Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector in Iraq said in a report made public today. > > The report, by Charles A. Duelfer, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The findings amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration’s prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators concluded were the facts on the ground. > > At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them. > > … > > “Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war,” Mr. Duelfer said in his report, which added that American inspectors in Iraq had “found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.” > > … > > Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had made fundamental decisions, beginning in 1991, to get rid of Iraq’s illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to end United Nations sanctions. But Mr. Duelfer argued that Mr. Hussein was also exploiting avenues opened by the sanctions, including the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a long-term plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted. > > Mr. Hussein “wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted,” the report said. But the conclusion that Mr. Hussein had intended to restart his programs, the report acknowledged, was based more on inference than solid evidence. “The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions,” it said, using the common abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction. > > … > > The report did reverse an earlier judgment by the Central Intelligence Agency, saying the Mr. Duelfer’s team had concluded that mysterious trailers found in Iraq after the American invasion in 2003 could not have been used as part of any biological warfare program. The trailers’ manufacturers “almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen,” upholding claims by Iraqi officials that linked the trailers to weather balloons used for artillery practice. ---
**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 7, 2004, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068/113 "2004-10-07T01:26:58Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > BTW, what saying? Fool me once, shame on… shame on you. Fool me… can’t get fooled again! 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-explanation-of-the-iraq-miscalculation/267068.md?page=5)