# No WMD in Iraq? Guess again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 16, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819 "2005-03-16T15:18:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/41 "2005-03-16T19:40:41Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > We shouldn’t conduct foreign policy on the basis of a public opinion poll. In a representative democracy, the decision to go to war is placed in the hands of the representatives, and they gave authority to the President to proceed with measures against Iraq, with war a definite option. > > The people had an opportunity to vote out politicians who voted against their wishes last Election Day. I don’t think this expression of the people’s will, the only one that counts, should be dismissed by reference to ephemeral polls. That’s at least ostensibly related to the quote that accompanied it. ---
**Author:** ![scule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@scule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scule)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/42 "2005-03-16T19:40:52Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Well, since you asked so nicely. 🙂 > > The report in the _Times_, on its own, is kind of thin gruel. Not entirely without use, but not satisfying either. I agree with the criticism that it does not establish that Iraq had an active WMD program at the time of the invasion. > > I also agree with cynicism about the accuracy of the report. In fact, I encourage cynicism about the accuracy of pretty much any report that comes out of a war zone until some time has passed and reports have been corroborated. I’ve made that point in the past. > > However, if the report turns out to be true it does seem to establish that Iraq had a more-developed “shadow” WMD infrastructure than is currently commonly believed. Both the nature of the materials the report talks about and, more importantly to me at least, the existence of a large infrastructure which knew exactly where to find the stuff and possessed the manpower and materials to remove it even after an invasion suggests to me that that same infrastructure was ready to get right to work in the event that instead of an invasion sanctions had been lifted on the country and scrutiny decreased – an outcome which many opponents of the Iraq war supported right up until war was imminent. > > I continue to agree that the Bush administration erred in relying on intelligence about the Iraqi WMD program, in particular about its state of development, when they chose to make that their lead reason for the war and agree that they should continue to be criticized for it. Accordingly, I believe that the title of the OP is unwarranted. And as long as we’re leveling criticism at the US, the US and its allies did an atrocious job of safeguarding these sites and deserve to be called out on that, too. Now this is the sort of response that helps. Thanks  Still, as **ElvisL1ves** and **Mtgman** point out, your statement: > [@](#): > > However, the textual meat of the OP, that Bush did not _lie_, is correct and is further supported by the story if it turns out to be accurate. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the Bush administration had a good-faith basis to believe what it was saying about WMD in Iraq. People who offer otherwise at this point can safely be categorized with the crowd that believe Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand. seems lacking for the reasons noted. This war was sold on the imminent and real threat posed by Saddam’s WMDs. All other aspects were very secondary and of little concern to the people. Dialogue was stifled, doctored and “massaged” evidence was presented, and dissenters were criticised unfairly. From an outsider perspective, it was clear very early that the case was being made to get Saddam, not to eliminate a threat. Personally, I think Saddam was a bastard that deserved deposition, but that does not equate to invading a country under thinly-disguised false pretences and calling it roses. Even if this Times article were rock-hard truth all it would mean is that old factories were still there. It says nothing about their productivity in the past ten years or what type of real threat Saddam posed. If anything, this article points out the massive incompetence of the administration of this invasion (as you noted) in failing to secure those sites right away. So some good points but not entirely convincing. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/43 "2005-03-16T19:43:02Z")
[‘shadow’ WMD infrastructure](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7181847/)" **?** …the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have disclosed secret Egyptian operations in [nuclear and chemical weapons] — experiments in the development of plutonium and uranium fuel cycles as well as evidence of sophisticated chemical weapons help that was given to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/44 "2005-03-16T19:50:34Z")
> [@scule](#): > > This war was sold on the imminent and real threat posed by Saddam’s WMDs. Team Bush only rarely used the word imminent. The PC way of descrin=bing the case that they made is that they said the threat from Hussein was such that if we waited to address it, it would be too late. I’m sure you can see there’re almost several shades of difference between a threat that must be dealt with immediately and an imminent one. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/45 "2005-03-16T19:52:03Z")
The operative term was “_grave and gathering_ threat”, with a side order of “mushroom cloud”. The difference? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/46 "2005-03-16T19:56:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The operative term was “_grave and gathering_ threat”, with a side order of “mushroom cloud”. The difference? One of the shades of difference is that it is very, very non-PC to say ‘imminent’. ‘Lie’ is also very, very non-PC. Instead one should say ‘imprecise’. ---
**Author:** ![scule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@scule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scule)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/47 "2005-03-16T19:59:55Z")
A clever point, but like blue, green and red M&Ms, it all comes out the same colour in the end. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/48 "2005-03-16T20:04:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Persons who maintain that WMD was the only reason for the Iraq war are simply lying. I’ll concede it wasn’t the only reason offered. It was however approximately 95% of the reason offered. So if you’re satisfied with someone who was only approximately 5% right leading the country. And most people felt the other reasons weren’t sufficient cause for a war. > [@](#): > > My initial post was intended as a derisive parody of the bitter-enders whom I correctly anticipated would come into this thread and make statements like Dio’s. Candidly, Iraq could discover and turn over to the UN a fully functioning battery of old Soviet ICBMs with anthrax-tipped warheads and powered by the blood of Kurdish babies and there would still be people who claim that BUSH@ll!burt0nLIED!!! If Iraq turned over a fully functioning battery of old Soviet ICBMs with anthrax-tipped warheads then I guess that would prove the no-WMD crowd wrong. But out of curiousity how much evidence would it take for you to concede they were right? I don’t want to throw around terms like “bitter-ender”, so I’ll just say you’re like the kid in _Polar Express_ who still hears the bells after all the other kids stop believing in Santa. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/49 "2005-03-16T20:04:18Z")
The full poll data, with the question I referenced on page 16, is [available online at this location](http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr050223US.pdf&id=2568). Very interesting. The only segment where there is more support for “spreading democracy” than opposed is in the 25-34 age catagory. I was interested in seeing that. **Mr Moto** , I am going to address your points in the hope that you will deign to answer mine and show how these looted pieces of equipment constitute affirmation of pre-war assertions regarding the state of Iraq’s WMDs. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > We shouldn’t conduct foreign policy on the basis of a public opinion poll. In a representative democracy, the decision to go to war is placed in the hands of the representatives, and they gave authority to the President to proceed with measures against Iraq, with war a definite option. Agreed, however there exists no data on how those representatives would have voted on the authorization to use force if the justification of a threat to the US or vital national interests from WMD stockpiles in the hands of Saddam was absent in the authorization. We can hope, however, that they would have followed the lead of their constituents and been at least marginally against the idea that the US should be in the business of spreading democracy. Otherwise we have a representative government whose representatives are going a different direction from the electorate and there is a term for that, it’s called an autocracy. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The people had an opportunity to vote out politicians who voted against their wishes last Election Day. I don’t think this expression of the people’s will, the only one that counts, should be dismissed by reference to ephemeral polls. I substantiated the poll above, with exact phrasing of the questions, number of respondents, etc. Hopefully that will put to bed the idea that it is “ephemeral”. In the larger case, I don’t think actions at the voting booth necessarially implies blanket approval of all the actions or policies of the representative(s). In the US system we are not given the ability to “line item veto” the actions/policies of our representatives. We have to take them as a whole and either vote for them or against them. Election results are a conglomeration of the performance of the representative on all the issues faced during that election cycle, as well as the electorates feelings about the other candidate in a particular race. When discussion individual policies it is not informative to prefer this general approval/disapproval rating as represented by the voting results, and which is blind to specific questions of policy, over the specific response measured by a properly conducted and measured poll. For example, a voter may still vote for candidate A(pro-war) even though they were personally anti-war because they are also pro-life and candidate A’s opponent is pro-choice(and anti-war). This does not mean that voter is pro-war. Electoral results can not be applied to every issue. Specific, properly conducted, polls are a better measure of the public opinion on a specific topic than election results unless that topic was the one and only issue in that election. Since the latter never occurs in reality, we can safely dismiss it from consideration. In effect, yes. I contend the poll carries more weight in the discussion of this particular topic than the election results because it represents undiluted public opinion of this exact issue versus a conglomerate of dozens or hundreds of other factors which come to bear when choosing how to vote. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/50 "2005-03-16T20:08:34Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > ‘Lie’ is also very, very non-PC. Instead one should say ‘imprecise’. One longs for the bygone day when GOP White House officials like Alexander Haig would instead say “That’s not a lie, it’s a terminological inexactitude. Also, a tactical misrepresentation.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/51 "2005-03-16T20:10:23Z")
> [@](#): > > The people had an opportunity to vote out politicians who voted against their wishes last Election Day. I don’t think this expression of the people’s will, the only one that counts, should be dismissed by reference to ephemeral polls. Maybe we need a new policy in Great Debates. Everybody who uses the argument that getting a majority of the popular vote in 2004 is proof that Bush is right has to also state in writing that Gore was right in 2000. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/52 "2005-03-16T20:12:37Z")
I thought Fleischer’s ‘imprecise’ was a fairly good one. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/53 "2005-03-16T20:21:25Z")
As good as Ron Ziegler’s “That statement is no longer operative”? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/54 "2005-03-16T20:43:36Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As good as Ron Ziegler’s “That statement is no longer operative”? No, not _that_ good. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/55 "2005-03-16T21:36:10Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > So, assuming everything in the article is true: > > [ul] > [li]The programs were dormant before the war. Some of these factories had materials potentially related to WMD, and some were capable of fabricating equipment that could be used to produce WMD, but there’s no mention of actual toxins or fissile materials.[/li][li]We knew where these factories were before the invasion, and they were being monitored by the United Nations.[/li][li]Then the inspectors left because the U.S. and its allies invaded.[/li][li]In the weeks following the invasion, the sites were systematically looted.[/li][li]Now no one knows where, for example, all those explosives from Al Qaqaa are.[/li][li]So the invasion, which was ostensibly to keep Saddam from distributing WMD to God knows who, has had the effect of allowing God knows who to loot all the materials and equipment that Saddam might have used to make WMD in the future.[/li][/ul] > > Seems like a fact-based anti-war argument to me. Couldn’t have summarized it better myself. But let me add some detail, borrowed from ancient posts: Numerous prospective WMD sites were looted _after_ our troops first came into possession of them. Why? Because they had to march on, to beautiful Baghdad, leaving the WMD sites unguarded. Then they’d get looted to the ground before [our special units that were to locate and inventory the WMDs could get there](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40212-2003May10¬Found=true) and do their jobs. So why is the OP gloating that the WMDs existed? Let’s assume they did, and that Bush & Co. believed they did. If he went to war ostensibly in order to keep those WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists, and did so in such a way _that we didn’t even guard the places we thought the WMDs were located_, thereby causing them to fall into the hands of whoever could grab them first, then this is a fuckup of a colossal order. Grounds for impeachment? And then some. The only thing distinguishing it from treason is _motivation_: even I don’t believe that Bush went to war in order with the intent of aiding the terrorists. But that’s the effect, if there really were WMDs in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/56 "2005-03-16T22:11:09Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Persons who maintain that WMD was the _only_ reason for the Iraq war are simply lying. We’ve been around this one repeatedly. It wasn’t the _only_ reason; they gave _lots_ of reasons. But you can go back and look at the Congressional resolution authorizing Bush to take us to war. You can go back and look at the U.N. resolution. You can go back and read the text of Bush’s speech on the night he announced he was taking us to war if Saddam didn’t surrender in 48 hours. I’ve done so in previous posts. And I can do it again if I must. Suffice it to say, they’re not _all_ about the WMDs, the terrorists, and the potential confluence of the two. But they’re _overwhelmingly_ so. > [@](#): > > My initial post was intended as a derisive parody of the bitter-enders whom I correctly anticipated would come into this thread and make statements like **Dio** ’s. Candidly, Iraq could discover and turn over to the UN a fully functioning battery of old Soviet ICBMs with anthrax-tipped warheads and powered by the blood of Kurdish babies and there would still be people who claim that BUSH@ll!burt0nLIED!!! Nah, it would mean that Bush fucked up in a manner that would make lying about WMDs look trivial by comparison. Because it would mean that in all likelihood, somewhere in western Iraq, some Sunni insurgents had a similar battery of ICBMs. Even with a perfect war plan, one of the most likely outcomes - given WMDs’ existence - was that in the chaos of war, some of them would fall into the wrong hands. And given a war plan that made no effort to secure our alleged objective… ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/57 "2005-03-16T22:26:21Z")
What’s the pay like for a Bush Apologist? And other than lacking a brain and/or morals, any additional requirements? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/58 "2005-03-16T22:43:49Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > What’s the pay like for a Bush Apologist? And other than lacking a brain and/or morals, any additional requirements? Well, for openers, you have to know which forum to use when you want to sling personal insults. So you’re disqualified. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/59 "2005-03-16T22:46:12Z")
Let me take a few of the points reference in the OP and the NYT and cross reference them to other reports on the subject. OP: Al Radwan was part of nuclear weapons program. Looting may have destroyed the evidence of this. IAEA: Inspected al Radwan factory on December 17, 2002. It was a site declared by the Iraqi government. [Cite.](http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/iaea-inspex-121702.htm) Inspected again on February 13, 2003. [Cite.](http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/iaea-inspex-021503.htm) OP: The Nida Factory may have also been involved in the nuclear program. Iraq Survey Group final report: > [@](#): > > Support Facilities > > ISG investigation into known or potential support facilities also found **no evidence** these sites had been involved in any renewed enrichment work… [at the] Al-Nida State Company OP: All kinds of stuff was going on at Al Qaqaa. UNMOVIK: Inspected explosives on 12/25/02. [Cite.](http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/iaea-inspex-122502.htm) Also inspected on 1/11/03. [Cite.](http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/iaea-inspex-011103.htm) I can go on and on, but it take time to round up all these cites. Bottom line, if there is any evidence for what the Iraqi gentleman is saying, I’ll admit the possibility that the looting kept the CIA from discovering such things after the war. But how outrageous can the logical conclusion of these claims be? From the article, I read the allegations as going like this: 1. Saddam had WMD programs at these sites. 2. But the UN did find them during inspections. 3. That’s because the stuff was hidden when the inspectors were there. 4. When the UN inspectors left, the items were returned to the factories during the war. 5. But the CIA and the military didn’t find the stuff after the war. 6. That’s because the stuff that was moved back to the factories was looted after the war. What a bunch of nonsense. This goes beyond conspiracy theory into the realm of the bizarre. If the stuff was hidden before the war, how could it have been looted after the war? Upon close examination, this theory of the WMDs that are first invisible, then looted, is about as silly as it can get. These buffoonish allegations have less in common with a “smoking gun” than they do with a “magic bullet.” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819/60 "2005-03-16T22:49:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 1. But the UN did find them during inspections. Uh, DIDN"T find them, obviously. :smack: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-wmd-in-iraq-guess-again/294819.md?page=4)