# 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:** 4
**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:** [November 21, 2005, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/61 "2005-11-21T20:35:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Further, it doesn’t address wheter or not the Intel Committees had full access or not. That was the point I was trying to make. It seems, from Senator Graham’s report, that the Bush administration stalled on the creation of an NIE report until the Democrats demanded one. Then the full report was provided to the Senate and House committees. The rest of the Congress was only provided with a report that is said to have excluded the contradictory information. So I am not sure of your point. Are you implying that because 6 or 9 Democratic Senators were able to see the full report, they should have adequately verbally disseminated the information, such that Bush can claim that everyone had the same access to information that he did? This is not plausible and provides no cover for Bush’s lies that equal access to intel was shared by all. Is this really the argument you are leading up to? Please tell me it is not. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/62 "2005-11-21T21:04:23Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Damn. I did proof read it. Apologies for any confusion it caused. No prob. Just had a feeling that quote was a classic instance of the too-good-to-be-true syndrome. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/63 "2005-11-21T21:18:20Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 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. Y’know, my dad used to talk about this. (These days, we try not to talk about politics at all.) He used to say how both parties wanted what was best for America, but they just saw that in different ways. And I think that used to be true. However, I am out of reasons to believe it’s true anymore. Right now, the GOP is trying to cut Medicaid and other aid to poor people, while trying to pass new tax cuts, and extend old ones, for the very rich. While barely touching the tons of pork they passed in the energy and transportation bills. While being unwilling to give Katrina victims a break on the new bankruptcy law, and while suspending Davis-Bacon so KBR could bring in lots of cheap immigrant labor for reconstruction, such as it is. No: these guys are not trying to do what’s best for Americans; they’re trying to enrich the already-rich while taking from everyone else. To use conventional terminology here is to do the equivalent of “Shape of Earth: Views Differ.” Views differ, alright, but there comes a time for the Dems to say, “these people are NOT on the side of average Americans; they’re out to screw you over, and they’ve got the track record to prove it.” And if they can prove it, which they easily can, it’s the right sort of politics: a political message as prophetic truth. There’s a time for jeremiads, and here we are. ---
**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 21, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/64 "2005-11-21T22:32:51Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > It seems, from Senator Graham’s report, that the Bush administration stalled on the creation of an NIE report until the Democrats demanded one. Then the full report was provided to the Senate and House committees. The rest of the Congress was only provided with a report that is said to have excluded the contradictory information. > > So I am not sure of your point. Are you implying that because 6 or 9 Democratic Senators were able to see the full report, they should have adequately verbally disseminated the information, such that Bush can claim that everyone had the same access to information that he did? > > This is not plausible and provides no cover for Bush’s lies that equal access to intel was shared by all. > > Is this really the argument you are leading up to? Please tell me it is not. Bush is claiming the Congress had access to the same info he did. Congressmen are saying that Bush had access to info that none of them saw. My point is that BOTH of these parties are not telling us the full story. Yes, Bush had access to info that not all Congressmen saw. But, some Congressmen did indeed have access to whatever reports they wanted access to-- ie, those House/Senate members of the House/Senate Intel Committees. No, they could not disseminate this info (it’s classified), but they certainly could disseminate their opinions about the whether or not that info warrented the passages of the Iraq Resolution in Oct '02. So, how many Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) on these committees did in fact take the time to dig deep into the intelligence report, and what did they do about it? AFAIK, the information about which Congressmen accessed what intel reports is, itself, classified, but their testimony in Congress and their votes are not. No, this does not absolve Bush from leading us into this war. I’ve never said otherwise. But, it does make one wonder about certain Democratic lawmakers (eg, Dianne Feinstein) who do sit on the [apporporiate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_intelligence_committee) [committees](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee), who did vote for the authorization of force resolution, and who are now saying they would’ve voted differently. Maybe, in fact, she didn’t see all the reports. But that would be because she didn’t take the time look, not because they were unavailable to her. She, like many others, got swept up in a rush to war. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/65 "2005-11-21T22:44:46Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Are you correccting or confirming? That cite, and especially your quote, doesn’t do the former. In fact it chastizes Congressmen for not even viewing the reports they DID have access to: > Further, it doesn’t address wheter or not the Intel Committees had full access or not. That was the point I was trying to make. (1) See **RTFirefly** ’s post #49 explaining the conditions under which the Congressional folks could view the NIE. (2) I think that the article I quoted from answers the question quite directly, if without much detail. It states, “But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material…But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President’s Daily Brief, with lawmakers.” I admit that it does not specifically discuss what members of the intelligence committee get to see but the implication I take from it is that they do not see everything that the President does. And, finally, I will just reiterate (so as not to miss the forest through the trees) that the bar that was being set when they were voting for the resolution in October was not whether there was enough evidence to justify an immediate invasion but whether there was enough evidence to give the President the authority to use force with the idea that he would use this authority to try to force Saddam to submit to inspections to see what he actually had. He did…and the inspections were already showing that our intelligence was garbage and thus that the evidence that we had to believe that Saddam did had these weapons was pure fantasy. Even so, 5 of the 9 Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee voted against the resolution (as did a majority of all of the Democrats in the House). I wish more of them had had the guts to do so…But, I still do think that voting for this resolution was not nearly akin to deciding unequivocally to send the troops in. ---
**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 21, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/66 "2005-11-21T23:04:06Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > I admit that it does not specifically discuss what members of the intelligence committee get to see but the implication I take from it is that they do not see everything that the President does. I’m not convinced of that, but I’m sure we’ll all get in education in the details of what is and isn’t available in the days to come. > [@](#): > > And, finally, I will just reiterate (so as not to miss the forest through the trees) that the bar that was being set when they were voting for the resolution in October was not whether there was enough evidence to justify an immediate invasion but whether there was enough evidence to give the President the authority to use force with the idea that he would use this authority to try to force Saddam to submit to inspections to see what he actually had. He did…and the inspections were already showing that our intelligence was garbage and thus that the evidence that we had to believe that Saddam did had these weapons was pure fantasy. Even so, 5 of the 9 Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee voted against the resolution (as did a majority of all of the Democrats in the House). I wish more of them had had the guts to do so…But, I still do think that voting for this resolution was not nearly akin to deciding unequivocally to send the troops in. Well, that’s certainly true as far as it goes. But, has there ever been a time when Congress authorized a President to use force and he DIDN’T use it? And I don’t recall any vocal opposition to Bush’s actions by Senators like Kerry and Feinstein in the immediate lead-up to the war (ie, Feb '03 timeframe). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/67 "2005-11-21T23:47:21Z")
Kinda depends on which resolution you mean. At the time, we were assured that the resolution was _not_ a “war resolution”, but a means to empower The Leader to press his demands for inspections, etc. as means to ensure the Saddam gave up what he didn’t have. We were futher assured, you will recall, that every means short of war would be exhausted. IIRC, we were asked to believe that the resolution should be considered as a means of _avoiding_ war, by making it unnecessary. _Now_, we are told that Democrats voted for a resolution to “go to war”, as if those assurances never happened, as if the resolution was a total _carte blanche_. Seems to me, an unsophisticated country boy, that one of these two statements must be false, seeing as how they are in direct contradiction to each other. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/68 "2005-11-22T00:03:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, that’s certainly true as far as it goes. But, has there ever been a time when Congress authorized a President to use force and he DIDN’T use it? What **elucidator** said. Either Bush lied then about what the resolution meant or he is lying now. There is simply no other option. > [@](#): > > And I don’t recall any vocal opposition to Bush’s actions by Senators like Kerry and Feinstein in the immediate lead-up to the war (ie, Feb '03 timeframe). Well, I don’t remember exactly what they were saying. I know that Kerry did give a floor speech right before (as?) the war began. But, I think the failure of many of the Democrats to be more vocal in their opposition in this timeframe is perhaps a larger failing than voting for the resolution. There were certainly plenty of us here who were vocally arguing against going to war. ---
**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 22, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/69 "2005-11-22T00:10:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Kinda depends on which resolution you mean. At the time, we were assured that the resolution was _not_ a “war resolution”, but a means to empower The Leader to press his demands for inspections, etc. as means to ensure the Saddam gave up what he didn’t have. We were futher assured, you will recall, that every means short of war would be exhausted. IIRC, we were asked to believe that the resolution should be considered as a means of _avoiding_ war, by making it unnecessary. > > _Now_, we are told that Democrats voted for a resolution to “go to war”, as if those assurances never happened, as if the resolution was a total _carte blanche_. > > Seems to me, an unsophisticated country boy, that one of these two statements must be false, seeing as how they are in direct contradiction to each other. Well, frankly, it was a _carte blanche_. There were no provisions for further approval by Congress. This unsophisticated suburban boy would not have voted for this resolution for that and other reasons, and neither would have my esteemed, though equally unsophisticated colleague from the country. So, for someone like Kerry to want to backtrack now just smells more like party politics than principled decision making. He was happy to vote against the first Gulf War resolution (though I’ve never heard why), and he was happy to vote against the $87B appropriations bill\* because he didn’t like some small provisions of that bill. He could have voted against the Oct '02 resolution if he had any concerns. \*You know, the one he voted for before he voted against ---
**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 22, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/70 "2005-11-22T00:18:19Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > What **elucidator** said. Either Bush lied then about what the resolution meant or he is lying now. There is simply no other option. There are always other options. If you want to say Bush lied, fine. I don’t expect politicians to tell the truth, so I’m not really out there looking to prove that they lie. > [@](#): > > Well, I don’t remember exactly what they were saying. I know that Kerry did give a floor speech right before (as?) the war began. But, I think the failure of many of the Democrats to be more vocal in their opposition in this timeframe is perhaps a larger failing than voting for the resolution. There were certainly plenty of us here who were vocally arguing against going to war. Yes, I was one of them. I really didn’t care whether Saddam had WMDs or not-- I thought war was a bad idea, and I’m disapointed in any of my representatives who thought otherwise. Kerry’s floor speach was pretty good. I cited it in another thread (maybe in response to one of your posts). He was quite clear that WMDs were the only reason he considered authorizing the use of force-- a good point for those who like to point to other provisions in the bill. Hillary’s floor speach was quite a bit more hawkish, and that might be one reason she isn’t raising her voice so much now in the chorus of Democrats who regret what they did. Or, perhaps she’s just smarter than the rest of them and doesn’t need to make political hay out of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/71 "2005-11-22T00:26:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So, how many Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) on these committees did in fact take the time to dig deep into the intelligence report, and what did they do about it? AFAIK, the information about which Congressmen accessed what intel reports is, itself, classified, but their testimony in Congress and their votes are not. Before getting too down on democrats for skimming, recall the treatment given the NIE by Bush and Rice: > [@](#): > > Q Can you square the one circle? Last week, the National Security Advisor told us that neither she, nor the President were aware of any concerns about the quality of the intelligence underlying this allegation. Given that it is a footnote, it’s one of six opinions, but the fact that in this NIE there is expressed concern that this is of dubious quality, how is it possible that the National Security Advisor and the President would not have been aware of those reservations? > > SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document. I think that what’s clear is that what the President and what policymakers are looking at is the case for reconstitution of the WMD program. In this case, the specific reconstitution of a nuclear program. The President was briefed on that on countless occasions about what he’s attempting. He spoke directly to it, that we can’t take the chance that he’s not further along than we anticipated, much like it was a decade ago. The National Security Advisor has people that does that. [Background Briefing on Iraq WMD; July 2003](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030718-8.html) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/72 "2005-11-22T01:21:05Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > No prob. Just had a feeling that quote was a classic instance of the too-good-to-be-true syndrome. No, just unintentional sloppiness. You know I am usually more diligent than that. But, anyone can check the original cite. I think I gave the address (I hope I did). To everybody, I want to add something though. It is true Congress could have aksed for the “other info”, but to ask for something you need to know it exists. From my memory, it was all, at the time, being pushed as absolute proof, and any dissenting or contradictory information in the reports was deliberately not mentioned. Again, why ask for something if you don’t know enough to ask. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/73 "2005-11-22T01:24:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Y’know, my dad used to talk about this. (These days, we try not to talk about politics at all.) He used to say how both parties wanted what was best for America, but they just saw that in different ways. > > And I think that used to be true. However, I am out of reasons to believe it’s true anymore. Right now, the GOP is trying to cut Medicaid and other aid to poor people, while trying to pass new tax cuts, and extend old ones, for the very rich. While barely touching the tons of pork they passed in the energy and transportation bills. While being unwilling to give Katrina victims a break on the new bankruptcy law, and while suspending Davis-Bacon so KBR could bring in lots of cheap immigrant labor for reconstruction, such as it is. > > No: these guys are not trying to do what’s best for Americans; they’re trying to enrich the already-rich while taking from everyone else. To use conventional terminology here is to do the equivalent of “Shape of Earth: Views Differ.” Views differ, alright, but there comes a time for the Dems to say, “these people are NOT on the side of average Americans; they’re out to screw you over, and they’ve got the track record to prove it.” > > And if they can prove it, which they easily can, it’s the right sort of politics: a political message as prophetic truth. There’s a time for jeremiads, and here we are. We were seeign the end of “esteemed colleague” with the first episode of “gof fuck yourself” Cheney. Then we have “almost call you a traitor” Bush. Also, that great hit, “retreatis for cowards” Schmidt. Let the mud fly. Let the games begin. Are you not entertained. I’m hoping for swordplay and pistol duels on the Senate floor 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/74 "2005-11-22T01:25:54Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > We were seeing the end of “esteemed colleague” with the first episode of “go fuck yourself” Cheney. Then we have “almost call you a traitor” Bush. Also, that great hit, “retreat is for cowards” Schmidt. Let the mud fly. Let the games begin. Are you not entertained. I’m hoping for swordplay and pistol duels on the Senate floor 😃 Damn typos, it’s been a long day 😛 ---
**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 22, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/75 "2005-11-22T01:46:41Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Before getting too down on democrats for skimming, recall the treatment given the NIE by Bush and Rice: [Background Briefing on Iraq WMD; July 2003](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030718-8.html) Bush led us recklessly into war. No ifs and or buts about it. But last I looked, this thread was about Dems, so that’s what I’m addressing. If you think we need another thread about Bush and the war in Iraq, feel free to start one. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/76 "2005-11-22T01:57:57Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, frankly, it was a _carte blanche_. There were no provisions for further approval by Congress. This unsophisticated suburban boy would not have voted for this resolution for that and other reasons, and neither would have my esteemed, though equally unsophisticated colleague from the country. It was a _carte blanche_, no question about it. If you were a Congressperson and were treating it as the “I need the authority to go to war so I can call his bluff on inspections” thing Bush sold it at the time as, it really came down to “Do you trust this President?” I can see how people could have come down on both sides of this. There’s a tremendous predisposition to trust the President on matters of war and peace. But OTOH, even in October of 2002, it was clear that Bush had been gunning for Iraq all year, and the idea that he was going to pull back if the inspectors didn’t turn up much seemed unlikely to me even then. In retrospect, ISTM that if Congress takes a vote like this, it should _assume_ it’s voting to go to war, even if it thinks the President is trustworthy. Which this one wasn’t, of course. > [@](#): > > So, for someone like Kerry to want to backtrack now just smells more like party politics than principled decision making. He was happy to vote against the first Gulf War resolution (though I’ve never heard why), and he was happy to vote against the $87B appropriations bill\* because he didn’t like some small provisions of that bill. He could have voted against the Oct '02 resolution if he had any concerns. I would agree with you if he hadn’t said quite clearly at the time what he thought he was voting for, which happened to coincide quite precisely with what Bush said he was asking Congress to vote for. Bush is the one who’s backtracked - and gotten away with it. Sure, Kerry was duped. So we got another four years of the con man, instead of electing his mark. Good thing the con is wearing thin - but Bush is still setting the agenda, even if not all of it’s getting through. He’s still got the ball; he’s just not scoring every time down the field. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/77 "2005-11-22T02:01:54Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > It was a _carte blanche_, no question about it. If you were a Congressperson and were treating it as the “I need the authority to go to war so I can call his bluff on inspections” thing Bush sold it at the time as, it really came down to “Do you trust this President?” … > > I can see how people could have come down on both sides of this. There’s a tremendous predisposition to trust the President on matters of war and peace. But OTOH, even in October of 2002, it was clear that Bush had been gunning for Iraq all year, and the idea that he was going to pull back if the inspectors didn’t turn up much seemed unlikely to me even then. There has been enough documentation since then, to prove at least to me, that there never was any intent to pull back. As for trust, one phrase keeps coming to me over and over… caveat emptor. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/78 "2005-11-22T02:17:54Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > There has been enough documentation since then, to prove at least to me, that there never was any intent to pull back. Well, not the least of which is that Iraq did basically everything that we now believe it could have done and we still went to war. I.e., the biggest problem people had was their being unable to provide documentation of the WMD being destroyed. However, as far as I know, neither the WMD nor documentation have been found. And, of course, the inspections turned up no WMD and plenty of evidence that our intelligence about WMD was complete fantasy and yet that didn’t stop the war march either. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/79 "2005-11-22T02:48:45Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I can see how people could have come down on both sides of this. There’s a tremendous predisposition to trust the President on matters of war and peace. But OTOH, even in October of 2002, it was clear that Bush had been gunning for Iraq all year, and the idea that he was going to pull back if the inspectors didn’t turn up much seemed unlikely to me even then. It was also clear that Bush was a pathological liar. As I noted in a thread on Feb 17, 2003: > [@](#): > > As for trusting Bush et al., see if they hadn’t lied and deceived constantly on economic and environmental policy then I might be willing to believe them and trust their judgement on a foreign policy matter where our knowledge is necessarily limited. **In other words, the fact that I don’t trust them is their own fucking fault! You want trust? You earn it.** Saddam certainly hasn’t earned our trust but unfortunately Bush hasn’t either. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295/80 "2005-11-22T02:50:16Z")
Meant to include the [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=163471&page=2&pp=50&) to that trip down memory lane. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-on-wmd/331295.md?page=5)