# Look, Ma, no WMDs!! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895 "2004-01-24T22:22:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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 25, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/61 "2004-01-25T17:49:12Z")
Our friendy warhawks repeat the mantra “Bush haters.” Not all who think the Iraq war was a disaster from which it will take us years to recover hate Bush. If he were governor of Texas, or a failed oil executive no one would care. What we don’t like are things that GW **does** as President of the USA. Like deciding to invade Iraq for God only know what private bug up his \*\*\* and pass it off as “liberating Iraqis” after other excuses are exposed as bogus. Or proposing elimination of capital gains or inheritance tax to help the “little people.” Or proposing marketable timber cutting to “save the forests.” Or on and on and on. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/62 "2004-01-25T18:33:06Z")
> [@Milum](#): > > Don’t Dirk! Please don’t leave. You misunderstood. This is NOT a debate. A debate is where open-minded people exchange their points of view. This thread is a gang bang and you are the babe. Listen, these people don’t hate Bush. They hate you. They hate you because you are right and they have been proven wrong and all they have left is their vengeful rhetoric. Pity them. > > They know not what they say or do. You’re right about one thing, **Milum** : it isn’t much of a debate. One side in this ‘debate’ has piles of cites supporting strong arguments. The other side has ‘these people hate Bush’. Nope, no debate here. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/63 "2004-01-25T19:36:26Z")
A few responses just at random: **Beagle** ~ > [@](#): > > - Man, am I ever going to wish the search function was working when Syria coughs up the Iraqi WMDs, or they are used on France for the “headscarf” ban.\* Pathetic, really. Just fucking pathetic. No, more than pathetic. Stupefying. The argument that Iraq would give its “WMDs” to terrorists or other nations is just one more unsubstantiated insinuation from the pro-war crowd. There is no evidence that Iraq has ever done so, and in fact no historical evidence that any country would do so. In fact, quite the opposite: > [@](#): > > \*\* Terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna has pointed out that the Iraqi regime had a long history of sponsoring terrorism against Israel, Kuwait, and Iran, providing money and weapons to these groups. Yet over many years Saddam did not transfer chemical, biological, or radiological materials or weapons to any of them “_probably because he knew that they could one day be used against his secular regime_.” > > _In the judgment of U.S. intelligence, a transfer of WMD by Saddam to terrorists was likely only if he were “sufficiently desperate” in the face of an impending invasion. Even then, the NIE concluded, he would likely use his own operatives before terrorists_. > > Even without the particular relationship between Saddam and bin Laden, the notion that any government would turn over its principal security assets to people it could not control is _highly dubious_. States have multiple interests and land, people, and resources to protect. They have a future. Governments that made such a transfer would put themselves at the mercy of groups that have none of these. Terrorists would not even have to use the weapons but merely allow the transfer to become known to U.S. intelligence to call down the full wrath of the United States on the donor state, thereby opening opportunities for themselves. Moreover, governments with the wherewithal to have acquired such weapons and the ambition to want them used are likely to have their own means of delivering them—through people who take orders. In the 1993 assassination attempt on former president George H. W. Bush, for example, Saddam relied on his own intelligence operatives. _All in all, governments would have little to gain and perhaps everything to lose by giving their WMD to terrorists_. > > Iraq and WMD, 48.\*\* This observation is equally true with regard to accusations that states would freely give such material to other states, _especially_ to regional power rivals. If you don’t believe me, ask [Colin Powell](http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=January&x=20040121210443adynned0.7071649&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html): > [@](#): > > \*\* With regard to the suggestion that Iraq’s WMD may have “ended up in Syria,” Powell said, “that is always a possibility, but I have seen no hard evidence to suggest that is the case, that suddenly there were no weapons found in Iraq because they were all in Syria. I don’t know why the Syrians would do that, frankly: why it would be in their interest. They didn’t have that kind of relationship with Iraq.”\*\* (Quick thanks to **Desmostylus** for the link.) I have become bone-numbingly tired of this particular technique, so often employed by the pro-war contingent in these discussions: take an illogical accusation, support it with a couple of unsubstantiated rumors from the right-wingnut blog factory, and then present it here as if it were unrefutable fact or even worthy of serious debate. The depth to which the American political discourse has fallen over the last 5 years continues to amaze me. But you’ve given me an idea. Although the search function is off line, I happen to have a couple of old debates bookmarked. I therefore invite you to join me in the [Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4488301#post4488301) for a review of the total **SHITE** your fellow warmongers have been spewing lo these last few months. > [@](#): > > - Moreover, nobody I know ever suggested that actual stockpiles of WMDs were the real reason to attack Iraq.\* Even more pathetic and stupefying. What sort of idiots buy into this lame-ass historical revisionism, I wonder? > [@](#): > > - The real reasons are quite obvious to even a half-assed student of modern history. I’d like to think I’m at least that.\* Yes, I would have to agree with that assessment. > [@](#): > > _I’ll do a short list: mass murder, use of WMDs, starting wars, funding terrorism, and mass torture._ Ooopsie. You forgot one: the possession by Iraq of “WMDs.” Even if you don’t believe that to be a “real” reason for the invasion, you (I assume) cannot deny the fact that it was given by the Bush administration as **one of the reasons** to invade Iraq. And as it turns out, that particular reason was bogus. In addition, there exists a mountain of evidence that the administration knew it was making false claims – specifically, mischaracterizing intelligence prior to the invasion as “certain,” when, in fact, it was not; setting up shadow intelligence agencies to produce data that one-sidedly supported the necessity of armed intervention; and pressuring intelligence agencies to skew their conclusions in favor of the administration’s position. **1920’s Style Death Ray** ~ > [@](#): > > - Someone is only lying if they **know** what they are saying is false. Calling Bush a lier is a bit over the top. Sure he was wrong, but he was relying on what other people were telling him. He may have been guilty of choosing to believe the people who were telling him what he wanted to hear, but I think he probably believed it when he said it.\* You’re right, in a sense. I certainly can’t say, for example, that I know for a fact that Bush lied. However, I can state that there exists a large body of circumstantial evidence that would seem to indicate that Bush himself, as well as key members of his administration, chose to exaggerate the threat Iraq posed to the US, and embarked on a kind of “smear campaign” to that end. It is no sense irrational to suspect the administration of ulterior motives, given the public record. There are also some rather tricky questions that both sides of the debate need to address, such as, “What is a lie?” or “How does a lie differ from an exaggeration?” I mean, if I were to say that I believe Bush purposefully exaggerated the threat Iraq posed in order to instigate a war, is that significantly different from claiming that he “lied”? How does one draw a line between “spinning,” “exaggerating,” and “lying”? Is the deceitful employment of misleading rhetoric equivalent to lying? **Magiver** ~ > [@](#): > > - You can type WMD until your fingers fall off but President Bush never gave that as a single reason for going to war. He threw a whole list of them on the table. He did that for a reason. Just as the UN resolutions were worded (by the United States) the way they were, so the United States could finish the job if it became necessary.\* No, you’re right: the administration muddied the waters so that they would always be able to backtrack to some sort of rationale for the invasion. But it is nevertheless the case that **one** of the reasons the US invaded Iraq was that country’s alleged possession of “WMDs.” And in fact, that is the only reason that would lend US actions legitimacy on the world stage: it is legitimate for one nation to “preempt” a military attack upon its territory by another nation, according at least to one rather broad interpretation of the UN Charter. Under this doctrine of “preemption,” Iraq could be deemed a potential threat to the US only to the extent that it possessed “WMDs.” To claim retroactively that the “WMD” argument was not central to the US justification for war is to give the lie to US claims that the war was not a violation of the UN Charter. > [@](#): > > - And any politician who can stand in front of a camera and say they voted for the use of force but didn’t think it should be used is a BS liar.\* That, on the other hand, I agree with whole-heartedly. Finally, **elucidator** ~ I’m stealing it. Hope you don’t mind. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/64 "2004-01-25T20:08:21Z")
**Mr Svinlesha** , as usual, a sterling effort. As usual, it will of course fall on deaf ears and blind eyes, as has already been amply demonstrated, and as former Treasury Secretary O’Neill has already pointed out. The surprise for me when he said it was that anyone was surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/65 "2004-01-26T03:42:17Z")
Check out this thread guys on claims of the past: [What pro-war guys said before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236525&page=1&pp=50) ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/66 "2004-01-26T05:40:25Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > And 2000 proved you don’t even need that. Yeah…sometimes all you gotta do is falsely claim that a bunch of people who are statistically unlikely to vote for you are convicted felons. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/67 "2004-01-26T06:38:54Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#): > > Actually, that’s EXACTLY what you do, whether you’re a CEO, Military General or the President of the US. You take information presented to you from what are hopefully reliable sources, and you _make a decision based on that information._ 1. There was no clear evidence that Iraq had any BCN weapons. Remember all those things that Powell said in front of the UNSC? Lo, they couldn’t find any of those. 2. When somebody messed up as badly as Dubya did, the responsible thing to do is to admit to the screw up and resign. Did we see W do that? > [@DirkGntly](#): > > What is expected, that the President is going to personally head an inspection team for months on end? No, there are other people to do that. And? Did he believe Hans Blix and his crew? > [@DirkGntly](#): > > Again, _based on previous history,_ Iraq had a track record of stalling and misleading UN inspectors. Oh yeah, if history were to be a guide, I can’t see how W got elected in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/68 "2004-01-26T07:10:40Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > We have little enough to be proud of, let’s not don the mantle of noble purity too quickly. The world at large might regard us with some plausible skepticism, to see us present ourselves as the paladins of virtue and liberty, armored in righteousness. “The world at large” is way more rotten then we are, never forget that. > [@elucidator](#): > > Recent virtue, like new wine, sets the teeth on edge. We shall never try to improve, then? ---
**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 26, 2004, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/69 "2004-01-26T07:12:02Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#): > > What is expected, that the President is going to personally head an inspection team for months on end? No, there are other people to do that. And “other people to do that” were led by the President’s hand-picked guy who was going to blow the war doubters out of the water with **facts, man, facts** and who just resigned saying he doubts that the post-Desert Storm weapons existed. What the hell does it take to get the message through? Raises megaphone, yells at top of voice - There were no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons!!! Hence no justification for the claim of imminent danger requiring a preemptive war!!! > [@](#): > > Again, based on previous history, Iraq had a track record of stalling and misleading UN inspectors. > . Fill in the blanks - Again, based on previous history, \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ had a track record of stalling and misleading \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. Poor \*\* Mr. Svinlesha\*\*! He posts calm, reasoned and coherent statements and gets back things along the lines of; “Yeah, you pinko liberals want to stand around and wait for another terrorist strike at the US.” Reading the war hawks crap makes me surer than ever that Barnum underestimated by an order of magnitude. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/70 "2004-01-26T07:25:43Z")
[http://my.aol.com/news/news\_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=2004012600410001508101](http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=2004012600410001508101) More from Kay: > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. intelligence agencies need to explain why their research indicated Iraq possessed banned weapons before the American-led invasion, says the outgoing top U.S. inspector, who now believes Saddam Hussein had no such arms. > > "I don’t think they exist,’’ David Kay said Sunday. "The fact that we found so far the weapons do not exist - we’ve got to deal with that difference and understand why.’’ > [@](#): > > Kay said his predictions were not "coming back to haunt me in the sense that I am embarrassed. They are coming back to haunt me in the sense of `Why could we all be so wrong?’’’ > > Kay told The New York Times in a later interview posted for Monday’s editions that U.S. intelligence agencies did not realize Iraqi scientists presented Saddam with fanciful plans for weapons programs and then used the money he authorized for other purposes. > > "The whole thing shifted from directed programs to a corrupted process,’’ he told the Times. "The regime was no longer in control; it was like a death spiral. Saddam was self-directing projects that were not vetted by anyone else. The scientists were able to fake programs.’’ > > He said he has had U.S. intelligence analysts some to him, "almost in tears, saying they felt so badly that we weren’t finding what they had thought we were going to find - I have had analysts apologizing for reaching the conclusions they did.’’ My two cents: when he says “I don’t think they exist,” I think he means they don’t exist in Syria as well. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/71 "2004-01-26T07:53:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > My two cents: when he says “I don’t think they exist,” I think he means they don’t exist in Syria as well. :rolleyes: Ah, but he also said that some material that _may_ be related to a WMD _program_, _may_ have been moved to Syria. What more proof do you need? He was _obviously_ talking about a screwdriver, a sheet of aluminum, and a rusty nail, which when combined with all of the other parts necessary to make a nuclear weapon, _could be used to make a nuclear weapon_!!! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Aro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Aro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aro)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/72 "2004-01-26T09:28:32Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#): > > Oh. My. God. > Now _this_ is a frightening thought: > > So _if_ Bush wins in '04, the argument is going to be, “He didn’t really win, _he hacked the voting machines_”???!?!?!?!?!? > > Jesus horking Christ on a pogo-stick, you folks are DELUSIONAL!! And I thought _Dean_ was unstable… > > I’m outta this debate, because that’s just crazy, man… I assume from your response you have yet to read [this report.](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm) It may, perhaps, make you think twice on this particular issue. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/73 "2004-01-26T12:28:44Z")
> [@](#): > > **Beagle** > What part of Saddam having a weapons program, hiding it from the UN, and keeping critical elements in place to reconstitute it do people have trouble with? > [@](#): > > **Gary** : The fact that no evidence has been found for it, and that even Bush’s head weapons inspector concludes that it didn’t exist. > [@](#): > > From an interview with Kay: > Kay told Reuters by telephone shortly after stepping down from his post on Friday he had concluded there were no such stockpiles to be found. > > “I don’t think they existed,” Kay said. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s,” he said. **Beagle** , keep in mind that this is the same David Kay that President Bush used to **support** our presence in Iraq **in his State of the Union Address just this past week!** Even the man who has taken Kay’s place at one time said that there was no evidence of WMD. They are now looking mainly for a paper trail only. Again, if the President wasn’t lying, **why isn’t he holding those who mislead him accountable?** Why isn’t there an investigation into our own intelligence sources? How could the information presented by Colin Powell to the UN be so wrong? (And I’m not blaming Powell, here.) ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/74 "2004-01-26T12:56:34Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > Ha, Ha. What are you going to do when he is re-elected, instead? Leave the fascism to the fascists and move to Germany. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/75 "2004-01-26T13:01:27Z")
Now that’s irony that is ironic. ---
**Author:** ![DirkGntly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d9b06d/32.png) [@DirkGntly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkGntly)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/76 "2004-01-26T14:04:32Z")
**Aro,** I actually have read that report - what I find so surprising is that otherwise clear-thinking posters can get so completely blinded by their own ideologies. That particular report is essentially nothing more than left-wing-corporate-conspiracy theory disguised as a journalism piece. Can some calmer heads prevail here?? Please…? Now, I would like to point out that Kay’s statements indicate that _US intelligence on Iraq was flawed_, which is EXACTLY the point I was making - decisions were made on faulty information. Was the deck stacked in favor of going to Iraq? I’m not 100% sold that it was - I’m also not 100% sold that it wasn’t, and hence the point of debate; present differing ideas and see where it leads. But I cannot abide the wild conspiracy-theory speculation on voting machines, etc. that’s suddenly started being bandied about here. That’s just ludicrous! CAN they be tampered with? Probably, in their current configuration. ARE they being tampered with? Most likely not… ---
**Author:** ![Aro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Aro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aro)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/77 "2004-01-26T14:35:54Z")
**DirkGntly** , I don’t mean to hi-jack this thread away from the central theme with this side issue, so apologies to the OP… > [@](#): > > I actually have read that report - what I find so surprising is that otherwise clear-thinking posters can get so completely blinded by their own ideologies. That particular report is essentially nothing more than left-wing-corporate-conspiracy theory disguised as a journalism piece. Can some calmer heads prevail here?? Please…? The interesting thing is, I see the report linked as generally covering the centre. I have read many far-left conspiracy theory spiels and would consider this report to be the sane, middle ground on this issue. Of course, this could merely be my European socialist leanings coming into play. 🙂 > [@](#): > > But I cannot abide the wild conspiracy-theory speculation on voting machines, etc. that’s suddenly started being bandied about here. That’s just ludicrous! CAN they be tampered with? Probably, in their current configuration. ARE they being tampered with? Most likely not… You initial post seemed to indicate that you found even the possibility of tampering happening as an utterly nonsense idea. I posted that article to show there certainly exists the _possibility_ of tampering in election results via control of the machines. It has flagged up an issue that warrants further regard and suitable action to ensure it never does become an controversial issue. It cannot just be dismissed as the loony-ravings of the far-left or some ridiculous conspiracy theorist. It is something that needs to be addressed. It is not necessarily far-fetched for people (or corporations) to act against public notions of correctness or morality in order to achieve something favourable to their own narrow interests. To assume it is never a possibility would be to ignore the lessons of history. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/78 "2004-01-26T14:42:59Z")
My, isn’t it convenient how every time the Pubbies get caught with their pants down its just a delusional left wing conspiracy theory? I guess I’ll use that excuse if I ever get arrested. “Your honor, the things you saw on that videotape were beamed into your head by Democrats because they’re insane! You must wear this aluminum foil deflector beanie to protect yourself from them!” ---
**Author:** ![Optihut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/edb3f5/32.png) [@Optihut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Optihut)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/79 "2004-01-26T14:57:27Z")
> [@Aro](#): > > **DirkGntly** I posted that article to show there certainly exists the _possibility_ of tampering in election results via control of the machines. It has flagged up an issue that warrants further regard and suitable action to ensure it never does become an controversial issue. It cannot just be dismissed as the loony-ravings of the far-left or some ridiculous conspiracy theorist. It is something that needs to be addressed. Although, come to think of it, it’d be kind of amusing, if some third party nobody would win the election by manipulating the voting machines 😃 ---
**Author:** ![DirkGntly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d9b06d/32.png) [@DirkGntly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkGntly)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895/80 "2004-01-26T14:59:44Z")
**Aro,** The initial post about machine-tampering implied that Bush coulnd’t win in '04 WITHOUT tampering with the machines - and that’s what triggered my reaction. I mean, c’mon…is that EVEN logical? Yes, there are/will be some questions/problems with new technology and I won’t deny that, but for that poster to have implied…well, you see where I’m going here. IF Bush wins in '04, I will be the FIRST PERSON to post a link back to this thread, WHEN someone jumps up and says that Bush only won “because he tampered with the voting machines!” I can easily see that becoming the cry of the far-left, instead of 00’s “he stole the election.” (I’m not wanting to start a debate on whether he did, or not, merely using for example/comparison.) **laigle,** Where did I get caught with my pants down?? To imply that machine-tampering is the only way for a ‘pubbie’ to win IS delusional…irrational…illogical…(see previous 2 paragraphs). It IS possible that a conservative/Republican CAN win an election, folks…if it weren’t so, there would NEVER be any in ANY office (which would be quite the wet dream for some, I’m sure). Instead of asking, “What did the Democrats/liberals/whatever do wrong?” maybe you should ask, “What did the Republicans/conservatives/whatever do RIGHT?” It is at least REMOTELY possible that some of what the conservatives are preaching is resonating with a significant portion of the population, don’t you think?? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-ma-no-wmds/225895.md?page=5)