# Did the Bush Admin Make the Case that Iraq Presented an Imminent Threat? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124 "2003-10-23T14:59:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**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:** [January 11, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/141 "2004-01-11T23:58:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by treis \* > \*\*We wouldn’t want to post the whole quote \*\* elucidator \*\* for that would prove you wrong again wouldn’t it? > > ## quote: > > ## “I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed" > > Funny how you keep calling the Bush administration a bunch of liars when you are doing the exact same thing they did. Pot meet kettle. \*\* I don’t think that Powell’s\*\* belief\*\* strengthens his statement one iota. I’m beginning to get the **belief** that Powell will say anything that he is paid to say. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/142 "2004-01-12T00:52:01Z")
I agree that it would be best if we could debate the actual evidence but alas none of us are in the CIA or are privy to it. What we do have though is a person that has all the information availible and he came to the conclusion that there was a connection. We must now either accept his conclusion or reject it by judging his qualifications and credibility. Now Powell’s qualifications are not in question but his credibility is. The way I judged it was that in my opinion it is logical that a crazy dictator that hates the U.S.A. would help a crazy terrorist that hates the U.S.A. I harbor no illusions that politicians are completely honest but being the Secretary of State has to count at least a little bit for credibility. Therefore I beleive that Al Qaeda and Iraq had some sort of working relationship. It however is reasonable to question the source of this information and believe it to be false so I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. It does not change my original assertion that it is possible that Saddam would sell weapons to terrorist orginizations. He has known ties to Palestinian terrorist orginizations and it is possible that in the future that there would be a group that wishes to purchase chemical/biological weapons and use them in a terrorist attack. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/143 "2004-01-12T00:56:51Z")
If the CIA actually _had_ evdience supporting the points you’re claiming, **treis,** the Administration would have brought it forth eons ago and silenced all of the skeptics. The fact that the Administration _continues_ to play the “we have no proof, just a lot of suspicion” game even now should be a big blinking neon clue sign for you that there is no such evidence. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/144 "2004-01-12T01:00:49Z")
I haven’t seen any evidence, other than simple assertion, that Saddam was at all insane. Yes, he was brutal. Yes, he seemed to be insensible of the consequences of defying the United States. But nothing he’s done has been _insane_. He was a secular despot, with no reason to do anything but distrust Al Qaeda, a fundamentally extreme religious organization that generally considered the Baathist regime in Iraq to be too Western and too secular. His reasons for invading Kuwait were sound, from the Iraqi point of view. The region was once part of Iraq, and it had been implied (by the US diplomats in Iraq) that the US didn’t give a flying camel fart if he invaded. He hedged on the disarmament at least in part because he still had enemies in the region and to basically declare that he had no way to retaliate for an attack was an invitation for Iran to move in. I’m not excusing Saddam or justifying his regime. I’m just presenting reasoning that is not insane for his actions, because his actions were not insane. Ill-advised, from the standpoint of hindsight, but not insane. So can we put the “crazy Arab dictator” angle away, please? Thanks. ---
**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:** [January 12, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/145 "2004-01-12T02:06:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by treis \* > \*\*I harbor no illusions that politicians are completely honest but being the Secretary of State has to count at least a little bit for credibility. \*\* Why? If the Secretary of State gets credibility points just because of his job, the President should get even more. Yet presidents do lie, as with Eisenhower denying spy plane flights over the USSR. The argument that “We have the information but it is too classified to reveal.” is not only tired, by now it is tiresome. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/146 "2004-01-12T02:15:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by treis \* > I agree that it would be best if we could debate the actual evidence but alas none of us are in the CIA or are privy to it. What we do have though is a person that has all the information availible and he came to the conclusion that there was a connection. We must now either accept his conclusion or reject it by judging his qualifications and credibility. Going to credibility, how’s their track record looking? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/147 "2004-01-12T03:39:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > **These were United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreements not treaties between the US and Iraq. And as such, they are the UN’s problem. The US ratified no such treaty with Iraq. > If you can produce such a treaty, I’ll reconsider.** If North Korea violates their 1954 cease-fire with the UN and attacks the South, is the South supposed to wait for the UN to get involved because the UN, not SK, negotiated the cease-fire? I submit that bringing in a mediating third party does not mean that one of the original parties give up their rights. They do, of course, if the mediation is binding and authoritative: If I file a restraining order against someone, and the cops decline to enforce the restraining order and the guy keeps harrassing me, I’m still limited in my ability to take matters into my own hands. But the UN is a talking shop, not a governing authority. > [@](#): > > \*\*Why should the US make a monumental effort to fix one of the UN’s problems that the UN doesn’t want it to fix? \*\*It never was the UN’s problem. Allowing the UN to mediate and foster diplomacy does not make it “the UN’s problem.” In point of fact, the UN found, on multiple occasions, that Iraq was in violation of the 1991 cease-fire. They didn’t do anything about it themselves, which is a shame, but ultimately irrelevant since Iraq was not their problem to begin with. > [@](#): > > \*\*While you may indeed think that Iraq was a matter of compelling national interest, you’ve not provided any reason for your assessment. It certainly was not the threat to the US that it was presented as. \*\* Meh, this has been debated endlessly and I don’t have the desire to go over it again. Suffice it that after 9/11, the US was pissed off and not inclined to put up with crap from anyone any longer. So we told SH that yeah, we’d let him slide for 12 years, but that that was over. Time to get your shit together, or else we’ll finish that 1991 deal. Was it “really” about 1991? Of course not. It was really about the the US was looking to send a message to the Islamists, looking for a way to take the war to them rather than being passive, looking for a way to remake the entire balance of power in the ME and destablize the autocracies there. I’m not in love with the whole neo-con strategy, but in any event, that’s another thread. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/148 "2004-01-12T03:55:09Z")
Funny how we “sent a message to the Islamists” by removing a non-Islamist regime from power. Go figger… ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/149 "2004-01-12T04:10:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jayjay \* > Funny how we “sent a message to the Islamists” by removing a non-Islamist regime from power. Go figger… Hey, but now those Shiites are pushing for one man one vote style elections [even harder than the Coalition Provisional Authority is prepared to allow](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/international/middleeast/11CND-IRAQ.html?ex=1074488400&en=8e7d4f0e8e8f62bf&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE). Maybe they can teach _us_ something about freedom and democracy! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/150 "2004-01-13T15:05:42Z")
Let’s see, first you said: > [@furt](#): > > And SH’s refusal to abide by the traties ending the first Gulf War was Casus Belli in and of itself. Then I pointed out that there were no such treaties between the US and Iraq. In response you bring up this scenario of self defense: > [@furt](#): > > If North Korea violates their 1954 cease-fire with the UN and attacks the South, is the South supposed to wait for the UN to get involved because the UN, not SK, negotiated the cease-fire? > I submit that bringing in a mediating third party does not mean that one of the original parties give up their rights. Which is, at best, a non-sequitur. I’ll assume that you’re simply carried away and not being intentionally disingenuous. There’s _still_ no one denying the right of self defense. Or are you trying to assert that Iraq attacked the US? > [@furt](#): > > It was really about the the US was looking to send a message to the Islamists, looking for a way to take the war to them rather than being passive, looking for a way to remake the entire balance of power in the ME and destablize the autocracies there. We deposed a _secular_ government that was _despised_ by Islamists. I’ll assume that you came by this non-sequitur honestly as well. While you may indeed _think_ that Iraq was a matter of compelling national interest, you’ve _still_ have yet to provide the reasons for your assessment. Iraq definitely was not the threat to the US that it was presented as. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/151 "2004-01-13T15:46:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What we do have though is a person that has all the information availible and he came to the conclusion that there was a connection. We must now either accept his conclusion or reject it by judging his qualifications and credibility. Now Powell’s qualifications are not in question but his credibility is. The CIA says there’s no evidence of Hussein trying to arm aQ. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are legally and morally obligated to share such with the CIA. It’s your right to trust politicians. It’s your right to decide that it _is_ okay for these politicians to predicate a venture costing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of casualties on a belief that has **no concrete evidence behind it**. Personally, I favor more realistic and responsible foreign policy. You know, the kind based on facts and rational analysis rather than feelings, beliefs and hunches. Since the stakes are so grave, it just seems inherently sensible that the underpinnings of the venture should be serious as well. I suppose that, _in part_, it icould\* come down to value that one assigns to the lives of our soldiers. When their lives are held in high regard, the use of the military becomes a matter of grave concern and requires careful analysis and a high level of certainty. When their lives are held cheap, then the quality of the case for war doesn’t matter too much, and beliefs w/o solid evidence can be seen as sufficient justification for the inevitable deaths of our military personel- sort of a “discretionary-war-for-sport” mentality. But that’s just me, YMMV. > [@treis](#): > > The way I judged it was that in my opinion it is logical that a crazy dictator that hates the U.S.A. would help a crazy terrorist that hates the U.S.A. > Therefore I beleive that Al Qaeda and Iraq had some sort of working relationship. It’s interesting that your conclusion’s dependent both on the “logic” of the action and the “craziness” of the actors. ([three words](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4459468#post4459468)) How does the evidence that “crazy terrorist” bin Laden despises “crazy dictator” Hussein fit into your conclusion, logically? > [@treis](#): > > It does not change my original assertion that it is possible that Saddam would sell weapons to terrorist orginizations. He has known ties to Palestinian terrorist orginizations and it is possible that in the future that there would be a group that wishes to purchase chemical/biological weapons and use them in a terrorist attack. What we have here is: it is possible that Saddam would sell weapons to terrorist orginizations Hussein has known ties to Palestinian terrorist orginizations it is possible that in the future that there would be a terrorist group who’d wish to purchase chemical/biological weapons What’s most sorely missing here, of course, is an assessment of probability. It is possible that US would sell weapons to terrorist orginizations. The US has known ties to Palestinian terrorist orginizations. It is possible that in the future that there would be a terrorist group who’d wish to purchase chemical/biological weapons. Sure fails to make the case that the US is _likely_ to sell NBC weapons to terrorists. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/152 "2004-01-13T18:48:52Z")
> [@](#): > > The CIA says there’s no evidence of Hussein trying to arm aQ. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are legally and morally obligated to share such with the CIA. You’re own friggen cite stated that Iraq was training AQ in posions and gases. It takes some kind of debater to attack the credibility of the cite they provided. Does the CIA have indisputible evidence that AQ and Iraq have connection? Absolutely not. Does the CIA have some evidence that AQ and Iraq are connected? Absolutely. Do I want to see the evidence that they have? Of course but I understand the nature of their business in that revealing information might compromise the source. Do I always believe everything the CIA/Government says without proof? No way no how but in this case the burden of proof in my mind is not very large. For example if the CIA/Government tried to claim that France is selling AQ illegal weapons I would require something on the order of a reservation for the Hotel Paris for one Osama Bin Laden with his reason of visit as “buying illegal weapons”. This is becuase there is no reason at all France would sell OBL weapons in fact it would be against their interest to do so. Iraq on the other hand has reason to help AQ in the form of a mutual enemy. AQ and Iraq both hate the U.S.A. and would love to see a biological/chemical weapon go off in the middle of New York. In my mind it is likely that that they would have some sort of working relationship. In this case the director of the CIA saying that Iraq trained AQ in the use of WMD’s is good enough for me. > [@](#): > > It’s interesting that your conclusion’s dependent both on the “logic” of the action and the “craziness” of the actors. (three words) Just becuase someone is crazy doesn’t mean that given a situation we can not make an educated guess about their actions. > [@](#): > > How does the evidence that “crazy terrorist” bin Laden despises “crazy dictator” Hussein fit into your conclusion, logically? I never claimed that they were lovey-dovey one does not need to like another to work towards a common goal. > [@](#): > > What we have here is: > it is possible that Saddam would sell weapons to terrorist orginizations > Hussein has known ties to Palestinian terrorist orginizations > it is possible that in the future that there would be a terrorist group who’d wish to purchase chemical/biological weapons > > What’s most sorely missing here, of course, is an assessment of probability. Al Qaeda and Iraq share a common goal in the destruction of the U.S.A. therefore it is probable that they would work together to achieve this. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/153 "2004-01-13T19:19:06Z")
What utter rot. By no stretch of the imagination was it in Saddam’s interest to aid and assist Al Queda to attack the US. Osama is a religious fanatic, he has no interest nor concern with consequences of his actions. In his case, anything that hurts America is a good thing, regardless of American response. Saddam is a secular cynic, which is a whole different kind of animal. He is concerned with consequences. Now, if Osama could come up with a terrorist attack that would cripple American military power and thus render him invulnerable to revenge, he might well have been interested. But all Osama can do is infuriate America without substantially weakening it. He doesn’t care, he’s going to Paradise. Saddam ain’t, and he knows it. I share a common goal with the Socialist Workers Party, I should very much like to see Bush turned out of office. Does that make me a Wobbly? Maybe in your world. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/154 "2004-01-13T19:57:30Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Which is, at best, a non-sequitur. I’ll assume that you’re simply carried away and not being intentionally disingenuous. There’s _still_ no one denying the right of self defense. Or are you trying to assert that Iraq attacked the US? Korea was meant as an illustration of the point: **bringing in a mediating third party does not mean that one of the original parties give up their rights.** I fail to find anything in Resolution 678, which created the ceasefire, that says UN approval was required for the resumption of hostilities. In fact, 1441 and other resolutions clearly said that SH was violating the 678 ceasefire. IMO when one party breaks the terms of a cease fire, the other party is released also. > [@](#): > > We deposed a _secular_ government that was _despised_ by Islamists. I’ll assume that you came by this non-sequitur honestly as well. Sorry, I forgot that enemy-of-my-enemy alliances never happen. For example, a capitalist democracy would never ally with a communist dictatorship to fight a mutual threat. Could never happen. > [@](#): > > While you may indeed _think_ that Iraq was a matter of compelling national interest, you’ve _still_ have yet to provide the reasons for your assessment. As I indicated, I’m not willing to engage in a hijack. There are dozens of threads discussing why toppling SH was in the US’ interests. Read some of them and post there if you are still unclear on the case that was made. I gave a quick summary of my own reasons for supporting it. There have been many, many reasons given why Iraq was a problem that had to be solved and why “regime change” was a goal of both the Clinton and Bush administrations; a couple of them – WMD and the possibility of a AQ connection – have been cast in bad light by subsequent events, but others have been very clearly vindicated. You may not agree with those other reasons given justified a resumption of hostilities, and that’s fine. But they exist and have been debated endlessly. Doing so here and now is not something I wish to do. Start a thread on that question if you want answers ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/155 "2004-01-13T22:32:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Now, if Osama could come up with a terrorist attack that would cripple American military power and thus render him invulnerable to revenge, he might well have been interested Such as attacking an American naval vessel? > [@](#): > > I share a common goal with the Socialist Workers Party, I should very much like to see Bush turned out of office. Does that make me a Wobbly? Maybe in your world. Of course not. Saddam is not an Islamic terrorist and Bin Laden is not a secular dictator becuase they worked together. The CIA and Colin Powell among others have said that there is evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq had some sort of working relationship. You may scream that there is no connection till your blue in the face but I have read two posts of yours, in one you tried to mislead me by quoting Powell out of context and the second you contradicted yourself, I know who I trust more right now. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/156 "2004-01-14T01:16:57Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Such as attacking an American naval vessel? Well, my fellow-travellers **SimonX** and **elucidator** , you have to admit that **treis** has us there. After bin Laden crippled the entire U.S. military by attacking that naval vessel, I am sure that Hussein was quite impressed and decided he’d better join the winning side pronto! > [@](#): > > The CIA and Colin Powell among others have said that there is evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq had some sort of working relationship. Well, **treis** , I suppose one could say that you and I have some sort of working relationship too. In fact, we’ve engaged in several online meetings at this point. Some of us actually believe that basing an entire war on some vague claims like this is…how shall we say…irresponsible. This sort of stuff can be used by nearly any country in the world to attack any other country. And, now that the U.S. has set such a shining example, I have little doubt that we will see this happen with greater frequency. The fact remains that [CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46460-2003Nov15?language=printer). ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/157 "2004-01-14T01:22:01Z")
> [@furt](#): > > There are dozens of threads discussing why toppling SH was in the US’ interests. And, how many of these dozens of reasons are actually internationally-lawful reasons for one sovereign nation to attack another? Or, do you subscribe to the idea that the only useful international law is those that have the might make the rules? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/158 "2004-01-14T01:54:55Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > And, how many of these dozens of reasons are actually internationally-lawful reasons for one sovereign nation to attack another? Or, do you subscribe to the idea that the only useful international law is those that have the might make the rules? “Dozens of threads,” not reasons. Please read carefully. Now follow closely, it’s complicated: 1. Iraq agrees to ceasefire with a US-led coalition. 2. The UNSC agrees to pass a resolution codifying that ceasefire and what Iraq must do to comply with it. 3. Iraq soon violated those terms, and continued to violate the terms for a decade; numerous UNSC resolutions were passed acknowledging this. 4. Violation of ceasefire terms is justification for resumption of hostilities. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/159 "2004-01-14T01:55:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Some of us actually believe that basing an entire war on some vague claims like this is…how shall we say…irresponsible. What makes you think that my justification for the war was based on this vague claim? If these claims were correct the war was good for the world in that we prevented an impending disaster. If these claims weren’t correct the war was good for the world in that we know for sure Saddam won’t be giving weapons to terrorists and a brutal dictaor won’t be able to continue to kill hundreds of thousands of his citizens while raping the country of its wealth. > [@](#): > > The fact remains that CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists . Whats your point? Intelligence information gathered after we have control of Iraq has no bearing on whether we were justified to go to war. Up until now the things that Bush has said that were in Iraq weren’t and the terrorist links appear to be less than to non-existant of what he claimed. There are two options either he lied about them or all of the intelligence was wrong. Either of these options is unacceptable and Bush deserves to be fired for these blunders. This however does not change the fact that signs before the war pointed to Saddam possibly producing wmd’s and arming terrorists with them. In fact it appears that some biological weapons research programs were still in effect. From the article jshore posted: > [@](#): > > Although there was no evidence of chemical weapons production, Kay said he had located biological work “under cover of new agricultural facility” that showed “advances in developing dry storable powder forms of botulinum toxin,” Cordesman wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/160 "2004-01-14T04:20:07Z")
From the article jshore posted: > [@](#): > > Although there was no evidence of chemical weapons production, Kay said he had located biological work “under cover of new agricultural facility” that showed “advances in developing dry storable powder forms of botulinum toxin,” Cordesman wrote. [From testimony on Iraqi dual use facilities:](http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/110701tucker.htm) > [@](#): > > The dual-use problem is even more acute with respect to the production of biological warfare agents, such as anthrax and botulinum toxin. Pathogenic microbes are widely available, either from the natural environment in areas where diseases such as anthrax or plague are endemic, or from the hundreds of culture collections scattered across the globe that provide seed stocks for biomedical researchers and commercial biotechnology firms.[19] The various types of nutrient media (“broth”) needed to grow microorganisms are ubiquitous and widely traded. Because bacteria will multiply exponentially under optimal culture conditions, a small seed stock of cultures can yield large amounts of agent over a period of days or weeks. This situation is further complicated by the fact that some dangerous pathogens are not only studied by biomedical researchers but have also become commercial products. For example, pharmaceutical companies currently produce large quantities of botulinum toxin (trade name Botox) for medical and cosmetic purposes. > The equipment used to produce biological agents is almost entirely dual-use: stainless-steel fermenters suitable for growing anthrax are routinely used to produce legitimate products such as vaccines, vitamins, food supplements, biopesticides, and fermented beverages. A multitude of companies manufacturing this equipment has grown up to service the burgeoning biotechnology industry, complicating attempts to impose restrictive export controls. Even freeze-drying (lyophilization) and milling machines, which can be used to convert bacterial or viral agents into a dry powder for optimal dissemination as a fine-particle aerosol, have become standard equipment in the pharmaceutical industry. It’s hardly surprising that there are lyophilizers at Ag facilities in Iraq. We have them in America too. After all the fuss over Iraq’s supposed [38,000 liters of botulinum toxin](http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/0306blckwl.htm), we are left with the reality of one old vial of botulinum _culture_ in a scientist’s fridge, and uncorroborated, unverified stories about secret weapons programs. Which is exactly where we came into this story a _year and a half ago_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124.md?page=9)