# Oopsie! Take that back, Mr. President! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914 "2004-01-24T23:59:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914/1 "2004-01-24T23:59:10Z")
In another thread I mentioned the President’s reference to the Kay Report on WMD in the State of the Union Address: thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=235925](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=235925) Presidential quote: > [@](#): > > We are seeking all the facts – already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. **Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.** Yesterday Kay resigned, saying that he is convinced that there were no weapons of mass destruction. And, if I understood him correctly, he believes there have not been any WMD since 1991. (This was from a network news report and I haven’t looked for hardcopy.) The newly appointed “head of the hunt” had previously stated that he didn’t think that WMD would be found. With his new job, of course, he is a little more open to the possibility and will at least be looking for a paper trail. Should we continue to look? Is it worth the cost? Can we afford it? Wouldn’t the money be better spent of levalar vests to protect our military? _Is the President beating a dead horse_? Shouln’t he quit implying that there were WMDs in his speeches? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914/2 "2004-01-25T00:17:08Z")
You have to know how to parse rhetorical gibberish. The statement: > [@Shrubya](#): > > We are seeking all the facts – already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Actually makes no real allegations. “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” is utterly vacuous. It says nothing. It imparts nothing. It defines nothing. It means nothing. It simply qualifies his original justification for the invasion into oblivion. After that he says Iraq “concealed equipment” which is not the same as saying the concealed WMDs. It’s not even saying they concealed anything illegal. “Equipment” is another vacuous word. It can mean bicycle pumps or clit buzzers or Saddam Hussein’s genitals, It is semantically unrelated to allegations that Iraq had WMDs. The “had we failed to act” line is also a non-sequitur in conjunction with the preceding statements since Bush has made no claim that such programs existed, only that “program related activities” which means absolutely nothing. When he says all that stuff real fast on tv it sounds like he’s actually got the goods on those Eye-rack-ees but when you analyze it for content he hasn’t even made a solid accusation. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914/3 "2004-01-25T00:21:51Z")
The question we face could perhaps be phrased like this: should we admit right now that we declared war without a having solid case for Saddam possessing WMDs, or should we try to stonewall for as loing as possible? If I were in charge, I would make the admission right now. Sure it would look bad when it showed up in every paper in the world, but the relevant fact is that it would only look bad for one day; there wouldn’t be any more news on that front. The current situation, where a new embarrassing revelation about America’s shoddy intelligence work and dishonest presentation of the facts surfaces once a month or so, is inflicting far more damage on our integrity than a single embarrassing admission of incorrectness would do. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914/4 "2004-01-25T03:25:46Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Should we continue to look? Is it worth the cost? Can we afford it? Wouldn’t the money be better spent of levalar vests to protect our military? Just how much _is_ it costing the U.S.? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914/5 "2004-01-25T03:50:13Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Just how much _is_ it costing the U.S.? Approximately US$100m per month. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914/6 "2004-01-25T12:22:11Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > The question we face could perhaps be phrased like this: should we admit right now that we declared war without a having solid case for Saddam possessing WMDs, or should we try to stonewall for as loing as possible? If I were in charge, I would make the admission right now. Sure it would look bad when it showed up in every paper in the world, but the relevant fact is that it would only look bad for one day; there wouldn’t be any more news on that front. The current situation, where a new embarrassing revelation about America’s shoddy intelligence work and dishonest presentation of the facts surfaces once a month or so, is inflicting far more damage on our integrity than a single embarrassing admission of incorrectness would do. You think Bush could admit lying to the US people, Congress etc, a lie which facilitated a war that has cost the lives of over 500 US servicemen and thousands physically and mentally wounded and it would only look bad for one day?? :eek: Disclaimer: Before we have another discussion about what constitutes a ‘lie’. I respond to the suggestion that George Bush should admit to “declaring war without having a solid case for Saddam possessing WMDs”. I contend that George Bush declared before the war that he did have a solid case for Saddam possessing WMDs. To admit now that he said that he did, when he actually did not, have the aforementioned solid case would, I believe, be admitting to having lied. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914/7 "2004-01-25T15:57:06Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > Approximately US$100m per month. I’m really not trying to be a jerk here, but could you provide a cite? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914/8 "2004-01-25T16:24:39Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > I’m really not trying to be a jerk here, but could you provide a cite? A hundred million a month is probably a bit on the high side. The Iraq survey group has reportedly already spent $300 million, and has asked for $600 million more. Here’s the NY Times article on it: [Officials Say Bush Seeks $600 Million to Hunt Iraq Arms](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/politics/02WEAP.html?ex=1075179600&en=87aaef9a599a7c6d&ei=5070) Of course, the budget for the survey group is classified, so the president’s press secretary will neither confirm nor deny: > [@](#): > > Q: Now, one of the things that was revealed today, if the article is correct, is that the administration is seeking an additional $600 million to fund the Iraq survey group, to keep it going and to provide resources for its continued efforts. Is that accurate? > > MR. McCLELLAN: There – as with normal, or other budget appropriations, there are classified sections within those appropriations. This is a wartime supplemental. It does have a classified section, and it would not be appropriate for me to discuss those classified sections. Rummy is no more forthcoming: > [@](#): > > Mr. Secretary, there was a report today that in the $87 billion request is a request for hundreds of millions of dollars more to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction. Could you explain, you know, what that would be used for, what it’s needed for, why it’s needed and how much it is? > > Rumsfeld: It’s classified. > > Q: Can I ask why that would be classified? > > Q: Why? > > Rumsfeld: I don’t classify these things, but that portion of the bill is classified. > > Q: (Inaudible.) – parts of it that aren’t classified; for instance, perhaps salaries of people that are doing the search? > > Rumsfeld: I have no idea how you’d do that, but I’m advised that that portion of the bill has some classified sections in it, and I’m sure that they have classifications for good reason. [http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/10/600mill.html](http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/10/600mill.html) ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oopsie-take-that-back-mr-president/225914/9 "2004-01-25T20:40:32Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > You think Bush could admit lying to the US people, Congress etc, a lie which facilitated a war that has cost the lives of over 500 US servicemen and thousands physically and mentally wounded and it would only look bad for one day?? :eek: “Look bad for a day” is a figure of speech, intend to mean that since members of the human race have a rather shorter attention span than some people realize, a single admission at this point would fade from the general public consciousness around the world eventually, while the current continual strategy of admitting only the smallest possible mistakes and trying to stonewall for as long as possible has the practical effect of keeping the issue in the forefront of international debate.