I’m not simply referring to the perception of the US public, with whom I haven’t had a lot of contact for the last many months. If the Bush administration lied about these WoMD (or was stupid enough to be convinced of the existence of nonexistent WoMD), there will be very negative consequences.
My choice of phrasing was strong, but I stand by it.
It’s extremely weird to hear these words coming from you, since you’ve been warding off the kernels since this whole thing began.
And this 15-year-old, pre-inspections, pre-Gulf-War I incident proves what? Will you next use the Blitz as proof that Stricker van Gogh is hiding V2’s in his basement in Austria?
In any case, my point was that, if WMD were not found, the admin apologists would rationalize it all away, poof. Thanks for providing an example, Lib.
Very negative consequences, ehh? Well, given the precedent we’ve seen, I would guess that the Shrub Administration will be the ones who get to decide the nature and scope of the consequences.
I’m not real hopeful that Shrub will lose the 2004 election as a direct result of this adventurism.
Stricker, could you be more explicit about the “very negative consequences” you think the Bush Administration will face if/when they’re shown to have lied about the weapons? I just don’t see it.
Domestically: Many other reasons were given for the war, and there isn’t even serious dispute about the desirability of the one real successful aspect of it, the ending of Saddam’s brutality. Those who bought into the other reasons too will be able to rationalize them away based on that success. It isn’t even necessary for Bush or his supporters in the public to face the falsehood, given their ability to refer either to the limitations of pre-war intelligence or the undeniable assertion that they either were moved to the next target country, or given to terrorists, or are still buried somewhere in the desert.
Internationally: Are you referring to the Bush Administration’s credibility, moral as well as intellectual, in world affairs? How much worse could it’s credibility get?
Well, not quite a week since I started this. I’ve been busy with my taxes, kids having their tonsils out, kids getting suspended from school, car dying. The usual hum-drum of life.
So, what did I miss? Just what kind of WoMD did they find? I’m sure I missed it in the papers.
[BTW. My nuts have never felt more secure.]
What do you guys think about this?
World Eater, I think that we are going to have to go out and kick some more ass somewhere else to get North Korea in line again. Before you know it, all that Iranian good will will be slipping away again, and Israel may not actually withdraw some settlements.
Bend over, Syria. We have a message to send.
Sort of along the lines of the OP, here’s an interesting story picked up in Yahoo News from the New York Times:
I’m pretty anti-Bush, personally, and I think that the diplomacy leading up to the war was a primer on how not to conduct international affairs, but if there’s anything to this then this may be the smoking gun that the current administration is looking for. I’m also cynical enough to believe that it could also be a deliberate sham, but let’s take it at face value for the time being.
Do I get a drink out of this somehow?
The face-value of stories about WMD-finds seems to have devalued somewhat, what with the glut of counterfeit items on the market.
I saw this in the paper this morning. What surprised me was that it was buried deep inside. If I didn’t read throughly, I would have missed it. It wasn’t touted on CNN’s ‘breaking news’ or MSNBC’s new alert, and I didn’t see it on the CNN broadcast this morning.
I wonder whether the news nets are just being cautious about announcing yet-another-WMD-find.
Remains to be seen, I suppose.
Bob
Should have mentioned. It sounds like this ‘Iraqi scientist’ is reporting exactly what the administration thinks happened. That, alone, should make people suspicious.
Bob
Don’t know what paper you’re reading, but it’s a NY Times story and was on their front page. Also is on Drudge. While it’s not their top story, there’s a link in the NY Times section at the bottom of CNN’s web page and a link in the MSNBC “The Military Picture” section. Could be that other publications don’t want to advertise that the NYT got a scoop on them.
We’ll see what develops when the investigation has run its course. It would not be the first false alarm. However, the NYT has a good reputation for checking its facts, and is not exactly known as a right-wing puppet. 
Shib. If it proves true, I’m buying at the next Ohio dopefest.
Don’t worry, Bat Boy will find those WMD.
I’m interested in hearing the opinions of y’all.
GWB will most likely earn the Republican nomination in 2004. If we don’t find WMD and the war turns out to be FUBAR, Bush will lose by margins never seen before. But if he does turn out to be right and Iraq had WMD (deployable or not, in whatever quantity, he can claim victory whichever way) will he have the support of America because he was “right all along” or will we still say he was full of crap and give the Democrats office?
Democrats nominate Carrot Top. He wins anyway.
So is that a statement or a question? If it’s the latter, a lot will depend on what ELSE is happening in the next year and a half. If the stock market revives, and economics are at least not too bad, and the gas prices drop (or at least don’t go up), GW is a shoo-in. This puts the Democrats in a real bad place. I’m assuming that they are decent human beings (there are those who would disagree, but let’s not get into that here), they don’t really want their fellow Americans to be out of work, hungry, or taking a big hit to their 401K plan. But the only way they will get elected next time around is if some of that happens.
IMHO, even if WMD are not convincingly indentified, the Republicans and many others who think getting SH and the Taliban out of control was a good thing will vote Republican anyway. There are significant numbers of blue-collar Democrats who will feel the same way. It’s only if significant numbers of middle-of-the-road people and Democrats are financially hurting that they will not vote for him. I think the Democrats will have to give it their best shot anyway; recall that after Desert Storm, George Bush had skyrocketing approval ratings, too. Again, just my opinion, but I think Clinton won because more qualified Democrats either did not run to begin with or dropped out along the way, thinking Bush was unbeatable. And then the economy tanked to the point where almost anyone with a pulse could have beaten him.
Heck, for that I might have to hie myself out to the Iraqi desert and plant some WoMDs myself.
Heck, for that I might have to hie myself out to the Iraqi desert and plant some WoMDs myself.