# Please tell me why you claim Bush lied about WMD? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650 "2005-03-21T23:53:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/81 "2005-03-23T02:28:33Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes. Unlike certain politicians I could name, they were waiting until all the facts were in. But they never said they had found any, or found a hint of any, and toward the end the Iraqis were cooperating reasonably well. Agreed. Of course, the reason the Iraqi’s were cooperating ‘reasonably well’ was because there was a US army on their border. That tends to get peoples attention. Had Saddam and his merry men been so cooperative in, oh, '98 say, then perhaps all this wouldn’t have happened. What do you say? 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/82 "2005-03-23T02:29:31Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Agreed. Of course, the reason the Iraqi’s were cooperating ‘reasonably well’ was because there was a US army on their border. That tends to get peoples attention. Had Saddam and his merry men been so cooperative in, oh, '98 say, then perhaps all this wouldn’t have happened. What do you say? 🙂 Yes, the threat of a military response caused their cooperation. And then the actual military response made the cooperation a moot point and ended up, from the standpoint of WMD, being a total waste. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/83 "2005-03-23T02:57:50Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > …Oh, and the missilies were not unguided, whatever that means to you. No one shoots unguided missiles at air planes… So much disinformation, so little patience. Yes, indeed, Saddam fired unguided missiles. Stupid? Yeah, I guess. Rumsfled himself remarked that the Saddamites had fired over 700 missiles at the “coalition” airplanes. He did not find it remarkable that 700 missiles were fired with not a single…no, not even one…apparent hit. Or at least, he didn’t mention it. Details, details. Reason: they didn’t turn on thier radar guidance systems, because the aircraft to be targeted carried anti-radar missiles that homed in on radar guidance. The procedure would then be, translated from Arabic, “turn missile guidance system to ON. Kiss your sorry ass goodbye.” Best guess: nothing more than a futile and expensive display of pique. If I poured a quart of tequila down your throat, blindfolded you, and spun you around about fifty times, then handed you a .22 caliber pistol to bang away at overflying flocks of geese, you would have a better chance of hitting one than an unguided air defense missile fired off in the general direction of the sky. ---
**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 23, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/84 "2005-03-23T03:11:36Z")
> [@](#): > > I…see. So, you don’t actually understand the whole democracy thingy then, I suppose. You know, representative government and all that. You figure that everyone has to agree with the governments policy or its not valid…and thus, if everyone doesn’t agree with it, the sacrifice of soldiers doing their duty is rubbish. Or something? Well…then I guess we can just toss out the sacrifice of every American soldier in every war ever fought by this country. Because in many if not most of them there were large factions that didn’t agree or even openly opposed the governments decision to go to war. Why stop there, XT? You should have pointed out that his position also kills little baby ducks. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/85 "2005-03-23T03:24:39Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Why stop there, XT? You should have pointed out that his position also kills little baby ducks. Could I get a cite for that?? I was unaware his position killed baby ducks. What about small puppies? Kittens? Baby seals? > [@elucidator](#): > > So much disinformation, so little patience. Yes, indeed, Saddam fired unguided missiles. Stupid? Yeah, I guess. Rumsfled himself remarked that the Saddamites had fired over 700 missiles at the “coalition” airplanes. He did not find it remarkable that 700 missiles were fired with not a single…no, not even one…apparent hit. Or at least, he didn’t mention it. Details, details. First I’ve ever heard of it. You are right, you’d have a better chance with the .22 than hitting anything with an unguided missile. You don’t by chance have a cite? Not that I think you are wrong, but I’d really like to read about that if you do…just for laughs. What about the planes Saddam sent up (I know we shot down several)? Were the pilots also blindfolded? Given tequila? Spun and handed a .22? 🙂 YOu are right though…it would be a pretty futile gesture if this was their standard response. Pretty stupid I’d say. Was this something they always did, or did they only start doing that after we fired some HARM’s at them?` -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/86 "2005-03-23T05:13:47Z")
Took place on these very boards, back in the days when there was still some basis for hope that maybe, just _maybe_ we weren’t really going to do this stupid goddam thing. We were discussing the usual stuff, then we got off on a tangent about how Saddam was doing all this hostile and dangerous stuff…stamping his foot, shaking his fist, so on and so forth…and then someone came rushing in, from the pouring rain, to say how Rummy was just on Faux, talking about how the Iraqi’s had fired over 700 missiles at our brave coalition pilots. Whereupon yours more-or-less truly asked how come they didn’t hit any, sidling up to the possibility that these numbers might be exaggerated. I mean, 700 shots and not one hit? A more knowledgeable Doper, (name escapes me, side effect of glaucoma prevention program…) brought in the skinny, to wit: they weren’t hitting anything because they didn’t dare turn on the radar guidance, or they would catch a missile right up their Nixon. So, yeah, basicly they transformed a sophisticated radar-guided weapon into a very expensive Roman candle. Why? Who fucking knows? Does anything about this Mongolian cluster fuck-up make sense? If pressed, I might be able to find the cite, but I’m kinda lazy and easily…ooh! shiny! ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/87 "2005-03-23T05:30:46Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > So what do you do when you get contradictions on a report? Well, they were not contradictions. Did you look at any of the reports? They said, basically, that the consensus is that Saddam has WMD (chem or bio at least) but that they do not have definitive proof of it. It is not a contradiction. It is simply an honest assesment of the facts. > [@](#): > > A) State that you know, for certain, that one of the posibilities is true, contradictions be damned. > B) Keep looking for complete, well constructed and fact based conclusion. That depends on the likelyhood that “complete, well constructed and fact based conclusion” is to be found. It could be that such things simply don’t exist when dealing with hostile international players. I would say that it also depends on the consequences of waiting. > [@](#): > > Which is the crux of the whole affair, isn´t it?. Quite. > [@](#): > > Cite?, (about the first part) **xtisme** provide close enogh to this. > [@](#): > > As for the second, what does the shooting of (unguided) missiles have to do with all this? Just saying that characterizing Saddams behavior as simply denying his WMD program is a bit disengenuous. > [@](#): > > Well, good for you notting that out. Kind of important note, you know, having access to Iraq´s documents to actually check out stuff and corroborate against suspicions and speculations. Quite so. I’m glad you support Americas invasion of Iraq to do so a second time. 😉 > [@](#): > > Oh, and what political motives that may be? No, really, make a guess. A dislike of Bush? > [@](#): > > Gee, I didn´t know I had _polititcal motives_, that sounds so ominous it creeps me. I always thought I cared more about people´s actions and their inherent morality regardles of what slogan, colour, creed or party they claim to profess, but was I wrong!, it´s all _political motives_ for me. Thanks for the tip. It seems I have offended you with this comment. I appologize for doing so. I truly did not mean that phrase in any sort of derogitory way. I mearly meant that certain prejudices are a necessary part of life. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/88 "2005-03-23T05:38:26Z")
Can I throw **Ale** ’s question back at you? What does the guidance state of the missles have to do with anything? Just turning on the radar guidance systems of these things towards our airplanes in the no fly zone could very easily be interpreted as a violation of the cease fire agreement between America and Iraq. firing the missles was certainly not a fireworks display given in honor the the pilots. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/89 "2005-03-23T06:39:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A more knowledgeable Doper, (name escapes me, side effect of glaucoma prevention program…) brought in the skinny, to wit: they weren’t hitting anything because they didn’t dare turn on the radar guidance, or they would catch a missile right up their Nixon. So, yeah, basicly they transformed a sophisticated radar-guided weapon into a very expensive Roman candle. Well, I’m too lazy (at least tonight) to look it up either. Not that I doubt your story but it sparks a lot of questions in my own mind. Were ALL the shots unguided or just some? Most? Why didn’t the Iraqi’s simply use heat seekers or some other non-radar guided missile (I’m sure the Russians or the Chinese could have been, er, asked nicely, to sneak a few across the border)? For that matter, there are other methods that can be used to defend against HARM’s or missiles of that ilk…some of them even fairly low tech IIRC. And of course there is still the question of the planes we shot down. Anyway, maybe I’ll have some time tomorrow to look it up for myself to see what the deal was. > [@elucidator](#): > > Why? Who fucking knows? Does anything about this Mongolian cluster fuck-up make sense? If pressed, I might be able to find the cite, but I’m kinda lazy and easily…ooh! shiny! lol, no…nothing about that mongolian cluster fuck makes much sense to me…it seemed to be an effort to see who could be the most stuborn and stupid. I suppose all things considered Saddam won…because he’s in a cell and both Clinton and Bush got re-elected. Well, if you can break away from your contemplations of the shiny thing I would appreciate it if you could find that old thread, time and inclination permitting. 😃 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/90 "2005-03-23T11:04:22Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m assuming you asked Pervert for a cite on hostility in the no fly zone (which many feel was enough to justify a war btw…though I would disagree myself). Anyway [here](http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html) is a quick and dirty history of this little know aspect of the conflict: Nope, my request for a cite was for this quotation: > [@Pervert](#): > > … > But Saddam was also saying if you come in or try to look anywhere else we will kill many of you. > [@Pervert](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Oh, and what political motives that may be? No, really, make a guess. > > A dislike of Bush? And you think I was born with a Hate-Bush gene or something?; no, my dislike stems from his (and staff) morally banckrupt actions in the Iraqi affair and other assorted attitudes towards the rest of the world. It has nothing to do with his political affiliations which I couldn´t care less. > [@Pervert](#): > > Can I throw Ale’s question back at you? What does the guidance state of the missles have to do with anything? Just turning on the radar guidance systems of these things towards our airplanes in the no fly zone could very easily be interpreted as a violation of the cease fire agreement between America and Iraq. firing the missles was certainly not a fireworks display given in honor the the pilots. It has nothing to do with: A) Wheter or not there were WMD in Iraq B) The justifications given for the urgent need of military action C) This thread topic I´d like to reply to the other points, but I´m late for work already. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/91 "2005-03-23T14:17:48Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Elvis honors my request for proof that GW was alone as the only president to lead us to war using deceptions. :rolleyes: Nice attempt at a list, though, including as it does numerous examples of _lack_ of deception mixed with existence of substantial (though never unanimous, as your attempted argumentum ad absurdam fallacy would have it) popular support. I already spotted you Tonkin Gulf, which as you know led to a war far more disastrous and even mistaken than this particular clusterfuck. Pity we, and especially Bush, didn’t learn from that example, isn’t it? **pervert** , the Zimmerman Dispatch was _not_ used by Wilson as a pretext for war, nor is it likely he’d have had popular support even if he did. The US entered WW1 because of the Lusitania sinking, which was a fact, not bullshit or even a mere lie. The anti-aircraft guys in Baghdad may look stupid for not turning on the radar and firing anyway, but what the hell else could they do? Just stand there while a Saddam-appointed (or at least Saddam-fearing) officer tells them to defend the homeland, and yes, we’re not gonna be able to if we use radar, but maybe we can get lucky if we shoot, and we won’t if we don’t, and anyway it will help keep up morale to see our missiles shooting back? No, they’re going to do what they did. Wouldn’t you? But US/Allied casualties over the entire decade of successful containment were \*\*zero (0). \*\* Extrapolate that all you like and you can’t ever get in the same universe as “a grave and gathering threat”. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/92 "2005-03-23T15:58:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Nice attempt at a list, though, including as it does numerous examples of lack of deception mixed with existence of substantial (though never unanimous, as your attempted argumentum ad absurdam fallacy would have it) popular support. I already spotted you Tonkin Gulf, which as you know led to a war far more disastrous and even mistaken than this particular clusterfuck. Pity we, and especially Bush, didn’t learn from that example, isn’t it? Well, I wrote my list before you posted your message ‘spotting me’ the Tonkin Gulf, so its not like I included that illegally or something. In addition, as I said when I originally posted it I was rushed for time and just trying to answer another posters question. Also, I did ask you first…not necessarily for cites but in general how you can say that no other war time president (which you later retracted for the Tonkin Gulf fiasco) used similar tactics. However, you asked something specific about Wilson and WWI so I’ll answer that briefly (though I said I wouldn’t provide cites for all that mess I’ll break down this once). As with some of my other examples, this is actually VERY similar to what GW did IMO (i.e. propaganda and deception to change the public mood and move them towards accepting war as a solution). > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > pervert, the Zimmerman Dispatch was not used by Wilson as a pretext for war, nor is it likely he’d have had popular support even if he did. The US entered WW1 because of the Lusitania sinking, which was a fact, not bullshit or even a mere lie. Actually I wasn’t thinking of the Zimmerman dispatch per se when I listed Wilson, more of his systematic attempt to bring the US into the war through wildly exaggerated propaganda. Oh, Zimmerman was a good example of the systematic approach but it was part of the process not a one shot good deal to get us there. Your example of the Lusitania sinking is a good example of how Wilson and his boys had already prepared the field so that we could use this excuse as a causi belli. [Here](http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/propaganda.htm) is a brief blurb I turned up in a 5 min search showing kind of what Im’ getting at…and honestly it doesn’t quite lay out the point I was making in any case, just sort of gets at it obliquely. I read a book a while ago on Wilson that layed out a much stronger case for what I was getting at, but I can’t remember where I put the book now or the authors name. > [@The Drift Towards War](#): > > It is one of history’s great ironies that Woodrow Wilson, who was re- elected as a peace candidate in 1916, led America into the First World War. With the help of a propaganda apparatus that was unparalleled in world history, Wilson forged a nation of immigrants into a fighting whole. An examination of public opinion before the war, propaganda efforts during the war, and the endurance of propaganda in peacetime raises significant questions about the viability of democracy as a governing principle. > > Like an undertow, America’s drift toward war was subtle and forceful. According to the outspoken pacifist Randolph Bourne, war sentiment spread gradually among various intellectual groups. “With the aid of Roosevelt,” wrote Bourne, “the murmurs became a monotonous chant, and finally a chorus so mighty that to be out of it was at first to be disreputable, and finally almost obscene.” Once the war was underway, dissent was practically impossible. “\*f you believed our going into this war was a mistake,” wrote The Nation in a post-war editorial, “if you held, as President Wilson did early in 1917, that the ideal outcome would be ‘peace without victory,’ you were a traitor.” Forced to stand quietly on the sidelines while their neighbors stampeded towards war, many pacifists would have agreed with Bertrand Russell that “the greatest difficulty was the purely psychological one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the whole nation is in a state of violent collective excitement.” > > This frenzied support for the war was particularly remarkable in light of the fact that Wilson’s re-election had been widely interpreted as a vote for peace. After all, in January of 1916, Wilson stated that “so far as I can remember, this is a government of the people, and this people is not going to choose war.” In retrospect, it is apparent that the vote for Wilson cloaked profound cleavages in public opinion. At the time of his inauguration, immigrants constituted one third of the population. Allied and German propaganda revived old-world loyalties among “hyphenated” European- Americans, and opinions about US intervention were sharply polarized. More than 8 million German-Americans lived in this country, and many were sympathetic to the cause of their homeland. Meanwhile, anti-German feeling was strong among the upper classes on the Atlantic coast, and was particularly intense among those with social and business connections to Britain or France. Most Americans, however, were not connected to the European conflict by blood or capital, and were not interested in waging war overseas. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The anti-aircraft guys in Baghdad may look stupid for not turning on the radar and firing anyway, but what the hell else could they do? Just stand there while a Saddam-appointed (or at least Saddam-fearing) officer tells them to defend the homeland, and yes, we’re not gonna be able to if we use radar, but maybe we can get lucky if we shoot, and we won’t if we don’t, and anyway it will help keep up morale to see our missiles shooting back? No, they’re going to do what they did. Wouldn’t you? Well, I’m unsure if they were stupid or not at this point as I don’t know the details. I’ve provisionally accepted this story at face value but I’d really like a cite with some details so I can evaluate it myself in context. Its claimed that no US jets were shot down , and I can certainly believe that, but there could be other reasons for this besides the IRaqi’s not turning on their radar. If you think it through, how many jets did the US lose when the full scale invasion took place? How many in the first gulf war? I’m sure the Iraqi’s had their radar on then, and our pilots were much more at risk then (attacking deeply into enemy territory, ground attacks, attacking well defended areas, etc…not patroling the no fly zone) after all. From memory it wsn’t very many planes we lost even then. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But US/Allied casualties over the entire decade of successful containment were zero (0). Extrapolate that all you like and you can’t ever get in the same universe as “a grave and gathering threat”. Well no…from a stand up military perspective I don’t think ANY nation on earth is really a ‘grave and gathering threat’ to the US. And for myself I don’t think Iraq was a ‘grave and gathering threat’ to the US from ANY perspective…I’ve never seen anything convincing otherwise. However, to play devils advocate for a second, I don’t think it was Iraq’s conventional military that was perceived as a threat to the US or anyone else…it was the possibility of their unconventional arms (chem/bio) being used or give to terrorists that was perceived as a potential threat. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/93 "2005-03-23T17:04:24Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Can I throw **Ale** ’s question back at you? What does the guidance state of the missles have to do with anything? Just turning on the radar guidance systems of these things towards our airplanes in the no fly zone could very easily be interpreted as a violation of the cease fire agreement between America and Iraq. firing the missles was certainly not a fireworks display given in honor the the pilots. :rolleyes: At the time, turning on the radar was considered a hostile act. If memory serves, we shot more missiles at them for that than their shooting stuff at us. 700 missiles would be almost one a day for two years - I don’t remember ever hearing about such a barrage. I suppose that if they did turn radar on during an attack we would have gotten very serious. Why did he do it? Probably the same reason he never came out and said there were no WMDs - macho posturing. I’d also like to remind everyone that one of the problems in the '98 inspections was that Saddam accused the inspectors of spying for the US - and he was right. That was a Clinton screwup, just to be even handed here. In 2002-2003 while Saddam wasn’t publishing guides to the WMD sites, the inspectors got to go just about anywhere they wanted, including places off -limits before. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/94 "2005-03-23T17:09:28Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Actually I wasn’t thinking of the Zimmerman dispatch per se when I listed Wilson, more of his systematic attempt to bring the US into the war through wildly exaggerated propaganda. Oh, Zimmerman was a good example of the systematic approach but it was part of the process not a one shot good deal to get us there. Your example of the Lusitania sinking is a good example of how Wilson and his boys had already prepared the field so that we could use this excuse as a causi belli. [Here](http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/propaganda.htm) is a brief blurb I turned up in a 5 min search showing kind of what Im’ getting at…and honestly it doesn’t quite lay out the point I was making in any case, just sort of gets at it obliquely. I read a book a while ago on Wilson that layed out a much stronger case for what I was getting at, but I can’t remember where I put the book now or the authors name. > -XT Not only that, but they locked up war opponents (those nasty socialists) and suppressed information. One of the reasons the flu epidemic was so bad was that the government censored news of how many were sick on the grounds that it would hurt the war effort. My wife is researching a book on the flu, and she has discovered that Wilson was a far bigger sob than I ever imagined. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/95 "2005-03-23T18:43:00Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Nope, my request for a cite was for this quotation: My appologies. [How about this.](http://www.american-freedom-network.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=37) In a 202 address he said _“The forces of evil will carry their coffins on their backs, die in disgraceful failure, taking their schemes back with them, or digging their own graves,” he said in the address marking the anniversary of the end of the disastrous 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war._ _“No weakling should imagine that when we ignore ill talk, this means that we are frightened by the impudent threats…and …no greedy tyrant should be misled into an action the consequences of which are beyond their calculations,” he said._ > [@](#): > > And you think I was born with a Hate-Bush gene or something?; no, my dislike stems from his (and staff) morally banckrupt actions in the Iraqi affair and other assorted attitudes towards the rest of the world. It has nothing to do with his political affiliations which I couldn´t care less. But I never said anyting like this. I mever accused you of being born with anything. Nor did I accuse you of disliking Bush because he was a republican. I simply noted that you had a dislike of him, and postulated that this may color slightly your reading of history. I really did not mean it as a criticism. > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with: > > A) Wheter or not there were WMD in Iraq > B) The justifications given for the urgent need of military action > C) This thread topic I certainly agree with you first point. And possibly your third. However, it did have something to do with the second. It definately shows hostile intentions by Iraq. Which were certainly included in the accusations against it before the war. > [@Elvis1lives](#): > > pervert, the Zimmerman Dispatch was not used by Wilson as a pretext for war, nor is it likely he’d have had popular support even if he did. The US entered WW1 because of the Lusitania sinking, which was a fact, not bullshit or even a mere lie. Well, I think you are significantly wrong on this point. The Zimerman telegram was definately used as one of the reasons to go to war against Germany. I never said it was the only one. [But don’t take my word for it.](http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1917/wilswarm.html) - One of the things that has served to convince us that the Prussian autocracy was not and could never be our friend is that from the very outset of the present war it has filled our unsuspecting communities and even our offices of government with spies and set criminal intrigues everywhere afoot against our national unity of counsel, our peace within and without our industries and our commerce. Indeed it is now evident that its spies were here even before the war began; and it is unhappily not a matter of conjecture but a fact proved in our courts of justice that the intrigues which have more than once come perilously near to disturbing the peace and dislocating the industries of the country have been carried on at the instigation, with the support, and even under the personal direction of official agents of the Imperial Government accredited to the Government of the United States. Even in checking these things and trying to extirpate them we have sought to put the most generous interpretation possible upon them because we knew that their source lay, not in any hostile feeling or purpose of the German people towards us (who were, no doubt, as ignorant of them as we ourselves were), but only in the selfish designs of a Government that did what it pleased and told its people nothing. But they have played their part in serving to convince us at last that that Government entertains no real friendship for us and means to act against our peace and security at its convenience. That it means to stir up enemies against us at our very doors the intercepted [Zimmermann] note to the German Minister at Mexico City is eloquent evidence.\* As with the most recent conflict, it is sometimes helpful to read the original acts, speeches, or resolutions rather than rely on news reports (or history books) for the condensed version. > [@Voyager](#): > > At the time, turning on the radar was considered a hostile act. If memory serves, we shot more missiles at them for that than their shooting stuff at us. 700 missiles would be almost one a day for two years - I don’t remember ever hearing about such a barrage. I suppose that if they did turn radar on during an attack we would have gotten very serious. Right. Turning on the radar was a hostile act. Are you saying that firing the missles was not a hostile act? I can’t hardly make myself believe that. Again, the only point (as to this thread) about the missles was that Iraq had been very agressive for a long time. It was not simply a poor put upon innocent country which the US was bullying. > [@](#): > > I’d also like to remind everyone that one of the problems in the '98 inspections was that Saddam accused the inspectors of spying for the US - and he was right. That was a Clinton screwup, just to be even handed here. In 2002-2003 while Saddam wasn’t publishing guides to the WMD sites, the inspectors got to go just about anywhere they wanted, including places off -limits before. Well, for full accuracy, the inspectors themselves were still claiming areas of holdouts by the Iraqis. They were hopeful that such issues could be resolved, but they had been pretty hopeful throughout the inspection regime. Many of those reports read like “We have made progress. We have much progress to make” sorts of things regarding Iraqi cooperation. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/96 "2005-03-23T18:59:46Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Right. Turning on the radar was a hostile act. Are you saying that firing the missles was not a hostile act? I can’t hardly make myself believe that. Again, the only point (as to this thread) about the missles was that Iraq had been very agressive for a long time. It was not simply a poor put upon innocent country which the US was bullying. What utter crock. In point of fact, yes, the US was – and is – fucking bullying Iraq and the international community as a whole. What do _you_ call the unilaterally imposed no-fly zones over Iraq? Personally, I can’t find any other label for the infringement of a nation’s airspace than an _act of war_. That Saddam was reduced to firing a few blind missiles in return only points to the reality of the situation. Namely that Iraq was far from being any sort of thread to the US. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/97 "2005-03-23T19:11:09Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > What utter crock. In point of fact, yes, the US was – and is – fucking bullying Iraq and the international community as a whole. What do _you_ call the unilaterally imposed no-fly zones over Iraq? I call them one of the terms of the cease fire directly resulting from the unilateral invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, agreed to by Iraq, and sanctioned by UN resolution. Do you seriously call them bullying? > [@](#): > > Personally, I can’t find any other label for the infringement of a nation’s airspace than an _act of war_. That Saddam was reduced to firing a few blind missiles in return only points to the reality of the situation. Namely that Iraq was far from being any sort of thread to the US. But this seems contradictory to me. If Saddam was no threat, and the no fly zones were merely acts of war perpetrated by the US, then we could have ended the inspection regimes, no? But if we did that, would not have Saddam been a threat in pretty short order? I’m not sure how you can escape the trap of thinking the inspection regime was onerous and inappropriate while at the same time pointing to it as the reason Saddam was not a credible threat. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/98 "2005-03-23T19:53:18Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I call them one of the terms of the cease fire directly resulting from the unilateral invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, agreed to by Iraq, and sanctioned by UN resolution. Do you seriously call them bullying? Maybe you should stick to arguing about things you know something about? [The Embarrassment and Illegality of the No-Fly Zones](http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/99 "2005-03-23T20:14:22Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Personally, I can’t find any other label for the infringement of a nation’s airspace than an act of war. Well, sure. It was effectively a continuation of the Gulf War, which didn’t even end in a real truce like Korea did. What’s the problem with that? The way things happened, the no-fly-zone period was just a long ceasefire in the middle of a single war. **pervert** , the Zimmerman Dispatch didn’t constitute an act of deception _on the US President’s part_. It is \*not \* analogous to Tonkin Gulf or Saddam’s Got WMD’s, which were deceptions _by_ the US President for the purpose of starting a war. It’s fair to nail the racist Wilson for spinning it into a Krautbashfest, though. Too, WW1 was already well underway, with substantial non-government-sponsored participation by many individual Americans already occurring. Iraq was in a contained cease-fire, a difference that does matter. > [@xtisme](#): > > However, to play devils advocate for a second, I don’t think it was Iraq’s conventional military that was perceived as a threat to the US or anyone else. Good, then. The argument has been widely made by various elements of the “war was justified” clan, though, that Iraq’s act of firing missiles at US/UK planes was an aggressive act that required its military defeat. Never mind whose country that was happening in. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/100 "2005-03-23T20:26:45Z")
You are right RedFury, the no fly zones were not sanctioned under the various UN resolutions IIRC (though 668 could very loosely be interperted this way if one wanted to stretch and bend things sufficiently)…nor (afaict) did Iraq ever sign off on them as part of the cease fire. They had been in place since '91 (IIRC) however, and were enforced for over a decade…by 3 different presidents. So, its kind of a stretch to lay this all on GW’s door step…after all, he was doing what his daddy and Clinton had done before him. Precidents. You could reasonably call them ‘illegal’ I suppose, and certainly they were never used as a causi belli mostly because of their quasi-legal status (and because in the end this issue was being distorted by both sides to club the other over the head with), but I think it would be a stretch even without formal UN sanction for them to call them so. I think a good case could be made under the Charter (recall that Iraq WAS a threat to Kuait, and had invaded them…then go back and look at the charter) for having overflights into Iraq by coalition forces to inspect things, though I admit I’m no expert (or even close) on this subject. I doubt YOU are either though so unless you have some kind of cite showing that it was ‘illegal’ I think I’ll just leave it at that. BTW, your own cite isn’t exactly what I’d be looking for. Something a bit more authoritative would be nice. Its certainly not so much of a stretch however to see them as the US/UK ‘bullying’ Iraq since thats precisely what they were put in place for. However, calling it ‘unilaterally imposed’ is bullshit, unless you think that the UK and France (admittedly France later backed out) are also part of the US now. I dont see it as ‘fucking bullying’ the ‘international community’ community either…quite the opposite. Had we REALLY been bullying them (instead of the other way around) we would have used it as a pretext to invade Iraq in the first place. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650.md?page=6)