# Dems on WMD **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2005, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295 "2005-11-16T11:46:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/21 "2005-11-16T16:27:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Bottom line, though, Bush led us into this war, and he has to take FULL responsibility. If the situtation in Iraq were better, and public sentiment in favor of the war was strong, you can bet your life he’d be downplaying the Democtrats’ role in the decision, and crowing about how brave and wise he was to overcome the voices of opposition. You can also bet that the Dems would be falling over themselves to show how hawkish and what a key role they played in pushing through the invasion. I agree, Bush has to take full responsibility for this war since he pushed it through. I’m not sure about the time table thing, but I’m starting to swing around in that direction. I think after the Iraqi formal elections in December would be the time to announce a time table to at least start the draw down, perhaps to some holding level with a full withdrawl left open ended (sort of like what we have done in South Korea, but without keeping the troops there for decades). -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/22 "2005-11-16T16:41:20Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I agree, Bush has to take full responsibility for this war since he pushed it through. I’m not sure about the time table thing, but I’m starting to swing around in that direction. My hope is that Bush has a timetable and has (secretly) told the Iraqi government what it is. But I have nothing to base that hope on… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/23 "2005-11-16T16:46:22Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > My hope is that Bush has a timetable and has (secretly) told the Iraqi government what it is. But I have nothing to base that hope on… It would be nice, and maybe you are right in your hope, but I doubt it. I think the administration is still trying to bull their way through the problems and hoping that the elections in December will stabalize the country sufficiently that they can kludge together a withdrawl starting next year. However, based on something I read earlier today, the Sunni’s are going to milk all the propaganda value they can over the torture allegations of insurgents in and around the capital. They are already implying that these prisons and the associated torture was used to effect the election process…and will be used to effect the ones coming up. Sort of a scortched earth poisoning of the well strategy for when they lose…and a set up for more violence to come perhaps. -XT ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/24 "2005-11-16T16:57:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Of course, the fact that one Republican publication has tried to spin this out one more time should be nothing new. > > We have addressed the issues behind these questions recently, particularly in threads such as [My disgust with politics](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=340054), and [Which leading Democrats also thought Saddam had WMD programs?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=341146). > > … Now, I expect the _Spectator_ to do this–spinning the information for partisan purposes is their job–but I would hope that people who can actually read the sources _and look at the dates_ can recognize the dishonesty in the remarks by the president and that magazine. Right on TomnDeb. I am so sick and tired of this. The same tired spin keeps popping up over and over. Each time, from someone else. Each time it gets refuted, shown to be open to serious questions, or even just shouted down, a few days later someone else pops up with the same damn spin or some “new and improved” version of the same damn spin. It is so damn tiresome at this point. To everyone. get off the Freeper site, stop listening to Rush and Ann and Billy O. Read the newspapare (the harcdcopy, unalteralbe after the fact version). Keep some of the more “newsy” ones for a few years, or in this case, just a few weeks. Then re-read and compare to the new “news”. This “new” spin is a pack of damn lies itself. It is an amatareuish attempt to go on the attack against people who have the right to ask questions and get answers. How dare Bush call someone ANTYONE else a liar or re-writer of history. That’s all I have to say on this sickening subject right now. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/25 "2005-11-16T17:00:45Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > The cite does not appear to support the claim that ‘Rockefeller knew within 2 days.’ In fact Rockefeller says something quite different. > > So the OP arises from a simple error of reading. The timeline has been misread such that (1) and (4) appear to occur at the same time. Is it an error, or was it deliberate? I “have problems” with the idea that the same manure keeps coming out again and again. After several repeated “droppings” like this, I don’t think the problem is simple error. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/26 "2005-11-16T17:28:12Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I agree, Bush has to take full responsibility for this war since he pushed it through. I don’t think anyone, including Bush, disputes that. But we’re dealing with two different, though related ideas: 1. Bush fucked up, generally and/or in any number of specific ways. 2. Bush intentionally lied about WMD. It seems pretty clear to me that what they’re saying is that the first is fair criticism, while the second is dishonest. That’s not an evasion of general responsibility so much as it is a rejection of one specific accusation. My own feeling is that the Dems would be better off with a “we were all fooled; but we’re willing to learn from that and fix our mistakes and the president isn’t” tack than by trying to deny the past. Since many Americans – and especially the centrist voters the dems theoretically want to win over – themselves supported the war at the time and have since come to be unhappy with it, I would think that would have some resonance. It certainly seems better politics than saying “I told you so” … especially when, in fact, most of them didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/27 "2005-11-16T17:36:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Did anyone see this political cartoon a few days ago: Bush, dressed as a scout leader, is walking into a swamp, followed by scouts (Congress). The caption reads: I didn’t mislead, you misfollowed. [This one](http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_atrios_archive.html#113203399969298227). If they ever put out the complete Tom Toles on disc, preferably with some sort of indexing, I’ll buy it in a heartbeat. The guy never seems to lose his edge. > [@](#): > > Bottom line, though, Bush led us into this war, and he has to take FULL responsibility. If the situtation in Iraq were better, and public sentiment in favor of the war was strong, you can bet your life he’d be downplaying the Democtrats’ role in the decision, and crowing about how brave and wise he was to overcome the voices of opposition. Right on, so far as it goes: if the President’s right on something like this, he’s right, and gets the glory; if he’s wrong, he should accept the political consequences, rather than trying to dodge them. But I think it goes beyond being right or wrong on the wisdom of invading Iraq, because the consequences to U.S. politicians are only that: _political_ consequences. Meanwhile, 2000 American troops have come home in pine boxes, and a large (but apparently untabulated) number have come home without their full complement of arms and legs, or endured other severe injuries. And tens of thousands of Iraqis have died that would be alive today if we hadn’t invaded. War has _real_, not just political, consequences. Accordingly, the moral burden of doing one’s absolute best to make the right decision on going to war is very great. Which is why Bush’s real sin is not having taken us into a war that turned out badly, but rather having hidden the evidence weakening or undermining the case for war from those in Congress who shared that decision - and who were, under the Constitution, the true owners of that decision. The moral burden was as great for them as for Bush, and he denied them the knowledge to base a wise decision on. Further, he apparently ignored the moral imperative for his own self: even before Jay Rockefeller’s recent remarks, the evidence is pretty heavily on the side of Bush’s having decided to go to war sometime before the spring of 2002, and he didn’t seem to want to hear evidence against the case for war himself any more than he wanted Congress to. This goes beyond politics. This is evil. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/28 "2005-11-16T17:52:17Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I don’t think anyone, including Bush, disputes that. But we’re dealing with two different, though related ideas: > > 1. Bush fucked up, generally and/or in any number of specific ways. > 2. Bush intentionally lied about WMD. > > It seems pretty clear to me that what they’re saying is that the first is fair criticism, while the second is dishonest. That’s not an evasion of general responsibility so much as it is a rejection of one specific accusation. Okay, here is a very specific question for you: In regards to the administration’s apparent failure to even particularly try to secure potential WMD sites, is this just one of the fuck ups or is this evidence that the administration didn’t believe their own propaganda about the danger of WMDs falling into terrorist hands. Or is it a combination of both or somehow neither (in which case explain why it is neither)? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/29 "2005-11-16T18:12:13Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I don’t think anyone, including Bush, disputes that. But we’re dealing with two different, though related ideas: > > 1. Bush fucked up, generally and/or in any number of specific ways. > 2. Bush intentionally lied about WMD. Bush lied about the certainty of what he knew, and he concealed what he did not know. There was clear intent, on some significant level, to deceive the public and Congress for political reasons. It’s pretty pathetic to argue otherwise at this point. ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/30 "2005-11-16T18:15:04Z")
aren’t we really discussing the Dem’s response to what amounts to a red herring? We have seen so many tactics (successful ones) for promoting propoganda: -fight the terrorists over there instead of at home -repeat “September 11” and “terrorism” at the RNC over and over -make the world safer for our children -Sadaam was an evil and cruel tyrant The question is; do you feel safer? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/31 "2005-11-16T20:04:35Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Bush lied about the certainty of what he knew, and he concealed what he did not know. There was clear intent, on some significant level, to deceive the public and Congress for political reasons. It’s pretty pathetic to argue otherwise at this point. We can go round and round on that, and I can quote what the various investigations have said, and you can tell me that all those investigations were biased or flawed. But the relevant point is that some (though not all) prominent dems were also proclaiming essentially the exact same things with the exact same certainty. It’s pretty pathetic to deny\* that\*. I suppose one can try to argue, as Tom does above, that there were some sort of dramatic revelations in late 2002 that changed everything; but _politically_, I think they’re better off just admitting they were wrong then, and painting Bush as a guy who meant well, but is now stubbornly refusing to admit a mistake and cut our losses. As I said, that’s kind of the way a lot of people think anyway. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/32 "2005-11-16T20:26:09Z")
FWIW: some weeks before the war, this was the position of a Democratic leader: [http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2003/030304/epf208.htm](http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2003/030304/epf208.htm) > [@](#): > > Senator Edward Kennedy argued against war with Iraq at this time, in a March 4 speech on U.S. foreign policy to the United Methodist Church annual conference in Washington. > > “War must always be a last resort,” the Massachusetts Democrat said. “All options must be pursued. Inspections still have a chance to work. Progress is difficult. No one said it would be easy. But as long as inspectors are on the ground and making progress, we must give peace a chance, so that war with Iraq does not distract us from dealing as effectively as possible with the obvious and ongoing threat of terrorism by Al Qaeda and the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear weapons.” > > Kennedy, a persistent Senate critic of the administration’s plans for Iraq, said “such a war will make the world even more dangerous for Americans – not less dangerous,” and alienate allies the United States needs to fight terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/33 "2005-11-16T20:30:03Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [This one](http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_atrios_archive.html#113203399969298227). That’s it. Thanks for the link. > [@](#): > > Right on, so far as it goes: if the President’s right on something like this, he’s right, and gets the glory; if he’s wrong, he should accept the political consequences, rather than trying to dodge them. > > But I think it goes beyond being right or wrong on the wisdom of invading Iraq, because the consequences to U.S. politicians are only that: _political_ consequences. Meanwhile, 2000 American troops have come home in pine boxes, and a large (but apparently untabulated) number have come home without their full complement of arms and legs, or endured other severe injuries. And tens of thousands of Iraqis have died that would be alive today if we hadn’t invaded. > > War has _real_, not just political, consequences. > > Accordingly, the moral burden of doing one’s absolute best to make the right decision on going to war is very great. Which is why Bush’s real sin is not having taken us into a war that turned out badly, but rather having hidden the evidence weakening or undermining the case for war from those in Congress who shared that decision - and who were, under the Constitution, the true owners of that decision. > > The moral burden was as great for them as for Bush, and he denied them the knowledge to base a wise decision on. Correct, there are moral as well as political consequences. I didn’t mean to imply that the consequences were solely political. And that’s where the Dems like Kerry do share some responsibility, although Bush owns the lion’s share. I stay away from the “Bush lied” debate because I think it’s next to impossible to prove that he did. It’s enough for me that he led us wrecklessly into a war that we should never have fought-- at least not when we did and how we did. Innocent lives were lost on both sides and Bush is responsible. > [@](#): > > Further, he apparently ignored the moral imperative for his own self: even before Jay Rockefeller’s recent remarks, the evidence is pretty heavily on the side of Bush’s having decided to go to war sometime before the spring of 2002, and he didn’t seem to want to hear evidence against the case for war himself any more than he wanted Congress to. Agreed- it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Bush would not have chosen war with Iraq. > [@](#): > > This goes beyond politics. This is evil. That’s where you lose me, except in as much as anytime a person does something morally wrong it’s “evil”. ---
**Author:** ![E72521](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dbc845/32.png) [@E72521](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E72521)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/34 "2005-11-16T20:38:08Z")
> [@furt](#): > > We can go round and round on that, and I can quote what the various investigations have said, and you can tell me that all those investigations were biased or flawed. But the relevant point is that some (though not all) prominent dems were also proclaiming essentially the exact same things with the exact same certainty. It’s pretty pathetic to deny\* that\*. > > I suppose one can try to argue, as Tom does above, that there were some sort of dramatic revelations in late 2002 that changed everything; but _politically_, I think they’re better off just admitting they were wrong then, and painting Bush as a guy who meant well, but is now stubbornly refusing to admit a mistake and cut our losses. As I said, that’s kind of the way a lot of people think anyway. I think that they are admitting that they were wrong. The point being missed is that they were wrong because they were lied to. Why in the world would a democrat want to paint W as a good ol’ boy who meant well, ala _That’s Our Bush_? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/35 "2005-11-16T22:44:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I stay away from the “Bush lied” debate because I think it’s next to impossible to prove that he did. [As I pointed out two and a half years ago](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3423782&postcount=127), the only alternative is that he believed the WMDs existed and constituted a threat, but didn’t give a damn if they happened to fall into enemy hands. > [@](#): > > So the message that the commanders in the field clearly had was, unless you think you can do both, don’t bother to secure the WMD sites. Wave at 'em as you go by, and hope the followup units get to anything important there before it gets stolen and sold in the bazaar. > > And now that we’ve known for nearly two months that any WMDs at these sites were made off with, what now? Is our Fearless Leader warning us, “there were WMDs in Iraq, but we can’t account for them, and they could be used against us at any time”? Nope, that rhetoric was for before the war. > > Now, he’s dancing on his big boat and chanting, “We won, we won!” And you know what? That makes sense only if he knew it was a lie from the beginning: that there were no WMDs, no terrorist threat from Iraq, no nothing. > > So I gotta go with “scoundrel”, as in “nastiest liar in the White House since Nixon.” Because it’s now totally impossible for me to believe he really believed there were WMDs in Iraq that might fall into terrorist hands. Even now, I can’t believe he’d be so whoopty-do if those hypothetical weapons weren’t so hypothetical, and they were gone from the places we knew they’d been. Based on the excellent reporting of [the WaPo’s Barton Gellman](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40212-2003May10.html). ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/36 "2005-11-16T22:50:10Z")
I might also interject [this Kevin Drum blogpost](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php) which lists, and sources, five specific Administration claims (three about WMDs, one about the al Qaeda-Saddam connection, and one about WMD delivery systems) that the Administration knew were flawed, or flat-out wrong, when they made them during the run-up to war, but made them anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/37 "2005-11-16T22:59:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [As I pointed out two and a half years ago](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3423782&postcount=127), the only alternative is that he believed the WMDs existed and constituted a threat, but didn’t give a damn if they happened to fall into enemy hands. A third alternative is that they were incompetent buffoons. And there is lots of evidence of that also. I go with they lying incompetent theory myself. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/38 "2005-11-16T23:00:12Z")
> [@E72521](#): > > I think that they are admitting that they were wrong. I haven’t heard that. > [@](#): > > Why in the world would a democrat want to paint W as a good ol’ boy who meant well, ala _That’s Our Bush_? Because the people you want to convince already voted for him. They supported the war. Many of them think he’s an alright guy, even if they aren’t sure, in hindsight, that he’s made the best decisions. Insisting that they must come around all the way to the view of “he’s an evil, horrible liar” is just dumb politics – even if he is indeed an evil liar. Implicit in that is a suggestion that “and you’re an idiot if you even think about supporting him.” There’s a reason that smart politicians refer to “my distinguished opponent” or even “my freind from across the aisle.” You don’t need to convince people your opponent is satan, and you’re setting the bar too high if you try. You just need to convince them that you’re slightly better. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/39 "2005-11-16T23:00:40Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [As I pointed out two and a half years ago](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3423782&postcount=127), the only alternative is that he believed the WMDs existed and constituted a threat, but didn’t give a damn if they happened to fall into enemy hands. The problem with those “only other alternative” analyses is that they are never the ONLY other alternative. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > ``` > I might also interject this Kevin Drum blogpost which lists, and sources, five specific Administration claims (three about WMDs, one about the al Qaeda-Saddam connection, and one about WMD delivery systems) that the Administration knew were flawed, or flat-out wrong, when they made them during the run-up to war, but made them anyway. > > ``` No need to convince me on that part. My take is the Iraq War hawks were so certain that they’d find SOME sort of WMDs, that they just played fast and lose with the intel. You know the old saying-- it’s better to ask forgiveness later rather than permission in advance. They figured that few people would care about the particulars as long as something was found. My guess is that they fully expected to find biological or chemical weapons. They also didn’t count on an insurgency like the one that emerged, so all would be forgiven. If you want to call that lying, I won’t quibble. I suppose it’s close enough for government work. It seems to be working in the court of public opinion, too. I just don’t find it useful, since I never thought the so-called WMDs were cause enough for war in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/40 "2005-11-16T23:05:23Z")
umm **the** lying incompetent. Not to mention incompetent typing on my part. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295.md?page=3)