# 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:** 7
**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 24, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/121 "2005-03-24T17:58:03Z")
Christ abe…were you trying to flood me with questions there? Give me some time to put some things together to respond to you. Its pretty obvious that using your magical hindsight machine has convinced you that your ability to cut and paste the data that reaches a conclusion now known should have enabled Bush the same luxury…so of COURSE he must be lieing. I’ll see if I can dig up some of the other side…i.e. what Bush and the intelligence community were looking at that convinced them that in fact Iraq had WMD. I can pretty much guarentee you it wasn’t ‘faith based’. What you (and others) seem to be missing here is that at the time the contrary evidence coming from UN inspectors and other sources contridicting what the government had no more credibility than what they were already looking at. Its hindsight that makes that evidence more compelling now. At any rate, time permitting, I’ll get back to you and address SOME of what you wrote. Addressing your two monster posts entirely is probably beyond me right now. > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > I appreciate the effort, and apologize for not giving another link. The only other point I would ask you to address is whether, if it can be said that Rumsfeld was lying, is the point raised by the reporter that a concerted effort involving Rumsfeld, Rice and Fleischer all putting out the same information at the same time. I think they WERE on the same page as far as their statements go, so in this case I think Rummy was lying about that aspect anyway. My guess is that they were all going on the same briefing materials, and thats why they all were putting out the same info. Now, whether this was a concerted effort or not, I’m unsure…but I wouldn’t argue against it. Finally, we get to the material itself. Here again if you want a strict black and white interperatation then I’d say you could plausably call it ‘lies’. To me it sounds like standard government spin, with Rummy in the interview basically saying as little as possible but trying to make what little he says sound rock solid. Same goes for what Rice and Fleischer were saying. > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > If Rumsfeld is lying, aren’t Rice and Fleischer lying as well? And if they, all being key members of the Bush administration at the time, were lying, isn’t it clear that it is an orchestrated effort by the Bush administration to lie? Keep in mind the timing of the orchestrated effort - only a couple weeks before the Senate vote, in which many Senators expressed part of their decision making was based on links between Iraq and al Queda. If you want to equate exaggeration with lying then I suppose you would be justified in saying they were lying. Certainly I think they were not telling the whole truth as far as the ‘orchestrated effort’ thing goes, though again I’m unsure if this was official (i.e. they were given exactly what to say and when) or if its because they were all working off the same briefing. My gut says its the latter, but you can’t discount the former…I wouldnt put it past any government to push such an orchestrated effort, and certainly not the Bush government. The data they were orchestrating though…I see that more as spin as I already said. I’m reasonably sure they had indications of what they were saying (which in hindsight turned out to be wrong), and they spun it to look stronger than it was. -XT ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/122 "2005-03-24T18:29:01Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > PS-Good stuff, **Abe**. Sadly, I doubt it’ll make the slightest bit of difference in the Faith-based Community. Would that I could predict the lotto with such ease. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/123 "2005-03-24T19:00:05Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > If you want to equate exaggeration with lying then I suppose you would be justified in saying they were lying. Certainly I think they were not telling the whole truth as far as the ‘orchestrated effort’ thing goes, though again I’m unsure if this was official (i.e. they were given exactly what to say and when) or if its because they were all working off the same briefing. My gut says its the latter, but you can’t discount the former…I wouldnt put it past any government to push such an orchestrated effort, and certainly not the Bush government. The data they were orchestrating though…I see that more as spin as I already said. I’m reasonably sure they had indications of what they were saying (which in hindsight turned out to be wrong), and they spun it to look stronger than it was. > > -XT Well, from this can it be said that you might allow that they were lying, or at least that it is plausible for someone to see it thusly? If so, can I assume I will never, never see the “BUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED” thing from you again? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/124 "2005-03-24T19:15:36Z")
Just one small point. > [@Sevastopol](#): > > Did he make availiable the unedited analysis of his intelligence professionals? No he did not. I could be wrong, but I believe that several members of congress as well as military officials did see the intelligence reports. I agree that they were not released to the public in a raw form, but they were made available to some people. > [@](#): > > Lastly an addendum. The deal was always; there are weapons or Bush is lying. It’s poor form to try to weasel out now. I don’t think anyone ever agreed to this deal except you. Please correct me if I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/125 "2005-03-24T19:23:21Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’ll see if I can dig up some of the other side…i.e. what Bush and the intelligence community were looking at that convinced them that in fact Iraq had WMD. I can pretty much guarentee you it wasn’t ‘faith based’. What you (and others) seem to be missing here is that at the time the contrary evidence coming from UN inspectors and other sources contridicting what the government had no more credibility than what they were already looking at. Its hindsight that makes that evidence more compelling now. I disagree. A large part of the pre-war intelligence regarding Iraq’s WMDs came from Iraqi exiles and ex-pats such as Chalabi. Chalabi claimed to have documentation of co-operation between the regime and Al Qaeda. In an interview with the PBS news program Frontline he specifically said this documentation existed and he had provided it to the administration pre-war. He also promised to provide a copy of it to Frontline immediately after the interview. Frontline never recieved any documents. A [transcript of the interview](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/chalabi.html) is available on the PBS website. In short, much of the evidence the Bush administration had which indicated banned weapons were present was based either off of British intelligence reports, which have not been shared, demonstrably forged documents(African Yellowcake), of the testimony of Iraqi exiles, or satellite images. All second-hand at best. The UN inspectors, however, were actually in-country. First-hand evidence. If the second-hand evidence indicated work was being done in specific places with specific weapons technologies, as Chalabi et. al. claimed, then it could have been turned over to the Inspectors and they could have brought back first-hand confirmation. The few sites which the inspectors visited on leads from the US turned up bupkis. [From a Frontline interview with Hans Blix](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wmd/interviews/blix.html) > [@](#): > > [Interviewer] What about the quality of intelligence you were given when you were working on the ground? > > [Blix] The first occasions when I became more skeptical about intelligence was in January 2003, because we had sent the inspectors to a number of sites we’d got intelligence; and in none of those cases did we find any weapons of mass destruction. In one case, we found a dump of conventional ammunition. In another case, we found material for rockets which had been illegally imported, but they were not related to weapons of mass destruction per se. In a third case, we found a stash of nuclear documents, which was a surprise. It was interesting and important; but weapons of mass destruction, no. So we said to ourselves, as I think I said at the time, “If these tips are the best – what is the rest?” So, amidst the fog of uncertainty and repeated failures of the intelligence the Bush admin had to prove out on the ground, Bush declared certainty and started a shooting war. His sources were frequently known liars with longstanding grudges against Saddam(being exiles will do that to you) AND their information proved to be bullshit on the occasions where someone actually tried to confirm it. Still, he asserted certainty that Saddam had “massive stockpiles” which could only be dealt with via aggressive war. The fact that the inspections teams had already destroyed “massive stockpiles” in the past and could demonstrably do it again, if stockpiles existed, was insufficent. War was the only option. Color me underwhelmed. Enjoy, Steven ---
**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 24, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/126 "2005-03-24T19:33:29Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Well, from this can it be said that you might allow that they were lying, or at least that it is plausible for someone to see it thusly? If so, can I assume I will never, never see the “BUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED” thing from you again? I’ve never denied that at various levels they DID lie Hentor. In fact, I’ve said as much repeatedly. What my position has been is that at the core issue, i.e. did Bush et al truely believe that Iraq had WMD and that the data they were looking at proved it to their own minds, that they didn’t lie…they DID believe that Iraq had them and they DID think the data they were looking at supported that…IMHO anyway. YMMV and obviously does. However, I conceed that it is at least plausible (more than plausible) for someone who is looking for only black and white lie/not lie to say that Bush et al lied. I don’t see it that way (I don’t see politicians spinning data to make it look better than it is as anything more than business as usual), but I can see how someone, especially someone who is completely intolerant of Bush (another position I conceed I can understand) and his antics leading up to the Iraqi war. You will never, ever see ‘BUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED!’ rants from me again. If I break this promise feel free to smack me over the head with this statement. That good enough for you? 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/127 "2005-03-24T19:36:03Z")
Just a nitpick, really. > [@Mtgman](#): > > The fact that the inspections teams had already destroyed “massive stockpiles” in the past and could demonstrably do it again, if stockpiles existed, was insufficent. War was the only option. Color me underwhelmed. But some of those stockpiles had in fact remained hidden from the inspectors for quite a while before they were found. I’m just saying that there was reason to doubt the ability of the inspectors to assure everyone’s safety. Just a nitpick, as I said. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/128 "2005-03-24T20:01:48Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > But some of those stockpiles had in fact remained hidden from the inspectors for quite a while before they were found. Sure, but then that gets back to the question of scale – did any of these secret stockpiles contain enough WMDs to merit a crisis worthy of a full-blown invasion and war? I mean, an old mayo jar with anthrax spores hidden in the back of a refrigerator constitutes a “hidden stockpile,” but would be laughably low on the threat scale. ---
**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 24, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/129 "2005-03-24T20:30:55Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’ve never denied that at various levels they DID lie Hentor. In fact, I’ve said as much repeatedly. What my position has been is that at the core issue, i.e. did Bush et al truely believe that Iraq had WMD and that the data they were looking at proved it to their own minds, that they didn’t lie…they DID believe that Iraq had them and they DID think the data they were looking at supported that…IMHO anyway. YMMV and obviously does. > > -XT I just thought of another piece of evidence - the massive participation in the Coalition of the Willing. If Bush truly believed there was evidence for the WMDs - fact based, not religious belief, he should have believed this evidence was good enough to show other countries. Yet as far as I know, no country joined based on WMD evidence. I don’t know if they knew the evidence was weak enough so that they didn’t even tried to show it, or that they did show it to a tepid response. I’m talking about evidence that would be more sensitive than that Powell showed at the UN. We know the validity of that evidence. It is one more indication that Bush knew the so-called evidence was not as strong as he was claiming, or that he received a response that should have made him reconsider. If a person says something untrue, he might be misinformed. However if he is shown evidence that it is untrue from a credible source, then repeats it, he is now lying in my book. What about yours? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/130 "2005-03-24T20:47:34Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > But some of those stockpiles had in fact remained hidden from the inspectors for quite a while before they were found. I’m just saying that there was reason to doubt the ability of the inspectors to assure everyone’s safety. Just a nitpick, as I said. Most of the stockpiles destroyed by the inspectors were in the early days(within three to five years of GWI). The inspectors were finding very little in the way of NBC weapons after they were resumed in 2002. During the first few years, sure. Iraq tried to hide stuff and ride out the sanctions. Once David Kay and the first team of inspectors, backed up by the UN, US, and UK, showed this to be something Saddam couldn’t get away with and that it was for the long haul then the stockpiles started being declared and destroyed. I haven’t head of any significant findings of actual WMD since the Final Full and Complete Disclosure(FFCD) published by Iraq back in 1996 IIRC. If you have evidence that they retained stockpiles beyond the FFCD in '96(and those sites were visited and destruction of any leftover WMD was verified by UN inspectors in '97) then I’d be interested in seeing it. Some more good bits from the Frontline interview with Hans Blix. > [@](#): > > **So having seen the report, having got to where we’ve got-- Do you feel, at this point in time, [that] we can say that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?** > > Unless you include the missiles there, everything points in the direction that there were no weapons of mass destruction there; and the missiles were, after all, means of delivering weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, chemical and biological. So I think you could probably conclude, yes, there were means of delivering, but there were not actual weapons of mass destruction. > > **Is that the point that you’ve reached yourself, in your own mind?** > > I don’t think anyone would totally exclude that you could stumble upon some hidden anthrax, or that you could stumble upon something. But every day, it’s more unlikely, and the question becomes more interesting – why did they behave as they did for 10 years, vis-›-vis UNSCOM? Why did they come with figures that they had to walk away from later on? Why did they deny access to UNSCOM if there actually were no weapons of mass destruction? This is the question that I think preoccupies me a lot, and I’ve been thinking a lot about it. > > **So why did Saddam Hussein deny access? Why did he act in a way that, to most people, seem very suspicious? Why – if there were no weapons of mass destruction?** > > I have some theories. One is the theory that they wanted to, on the one hand, send a message to the U.N. – “Yes, we have done away with it all. You should lift the sanctions,” but on the other hand, send a message sort of back door, that, “Well, you know, we might still have them.” As I said, it’s like putting up a sign on the door, “Beware of the dog” and you don’t have a dog. A little more respect among the neighbors and others.And the Americans actually thought they had chemical weapons. [So] that’s one possibility. > > Another possibility is, why should they cooperate with inspectors if they weren’t rewarded for it? And the reward should be a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. made it fairly clear, at least periodically, that they were never going to lift sanctions until Saddam was gone. If Saddam would not go, well, then the sanctions would remain; so why cooperate? That’s the second possibility. They were less relevant at the end, because the sanctions were not biting at the end. They could export as much oil as they wanted. The sanctions were more like glorified export controls to Iraq. > > A third reason could be that they didn’t want the inspectors to get to places where they had conventional weapons. After all, the lines were pretty open between UNSCOM inspectors and intelligence organizations. Since the U.S. and the U.K. were there in the no-fly zones and could go bombing them any day, maybe they didn’t like the inspectors to pass on information to these intelligence [organizations about] where they had conventional weapons, that they could be bombed the next day; that’s a possibility. > … > **Do you believe that there was an alternative to this war? And what was it?** > > Yes, I think the alternative would have been to continue the inspections. We might have clarified more, though I think that, with the American attitude, it would have taken a lot to convince them, and convince us, too, that there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction. They would probably have said that the inspectors are incompetent, they are too soft and Blix is too soft, etcetera. … So that would have been a hard thing to do. > > But the inspectors would have been there, and in reality, would have achieved a containment. Iraq would not have gone ahead and restarted biological and chemical programs under our noses. If they didn’t do it between 1998 and 2002, when there were no inspectors, they were not likely to do it when the inspectors have come back. > … > **The defectors – what do we think about the testimony of men like that now?** > > It’s a bit odd, I must say. There must have been many of them who came out, because the sites that were given to us by intelligence service must have come in most cases from defectors. But they have, of course, reasons. In some cases, they want to have asylum or they want to be settled. That may be the reason why they tell more than they actually know. They might have heard somebody say something, or they might believe-- How that psychology works, I really don’t know. But when you listen to it, you have to be very critical. You have to have corroboration. Someone like Rumsfeld, for instance, he said on some occasion …“The real knowledge you get from defectors.” Well, I think you should rethink that. He’s an intelligent man, so maybe he does. > … > **Do you think David Kay will deliver for the administration, for the Bush government, which is what seems to be what is required of him?** > > I hope that he will be objective, because what he says will be scrutinized, and I will not take it as evidence if he simply says that one source [is] cooperating said this or that. That’s not evidence. We did not accept this as evidence. Or if he says that he has found something that could have been convenient for producing biological weapons, that’s not evidence, again. I think he has to be very careful about that, because the whole world will want to have truth. > > **Do you think that’s what it risks turning into already?** > > No, I wouldn’t say he’s done it yet. But I see in the 13 pages that they have published that I’ve seen some wordings of the kind that I’ve just quoted. And that will not be enough to prove the case that there were programs on biological and chemical weapons. > … > **When you read David Kay’s Iraq Survey Group interim report which came out October 2003, what did you think?** > > Of course I took note, like everybody else, that they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction, which really was a negation of what the governments were saying. … But I don’t think there was anything else you could do in the circumstances. I felt rather that they wanted very much to come to the conclusion that there were still programs – the intention was there. Saddam never abandoned the intention of building up his weapons of mass destruction. They talked, for instance, about things that were dual use, and hinting that yes, this might be an indication of the existence of weapons. > > Take the contention that they have found a series of laboratories which belonged to the Muhabharat, the secret intelligence organizations, and they were “suitable” – if I remember the right word they used – they’re suitable for research and development of biological and chemical weapons. Well, let’s have the evidence – did they actually use it for that purpose? Was it ever used? But this innuendo is not enough to convince me. It could be, but we’d like to see more about that. > > **You sound pretty skeptical, as if this report really didn’t amount to much.** > > I’ve been skeptical all through, but I’ve also been skeptical about what the Iraqis told us. You see, I think that we need a critical thinking in this. When you look at evidence, a court uses examination of witnesses and cross-examination. At university, when you submit your thesis for your doctorate, you have an opponent appointed by your faculty who is there to cross-examine you and say what’s behind this. I think that here, we are talking about the guilt of a nation, and we also need some cross-examination. We need a critical eye to look at it. The [Final Report on Iraqi WMDs from the Iraq Survey Group](http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/)(formerly headed by David Kay and later by Charles Deulfer) contains a lot of verbiage exactly like Hans Blix described. Lots of talk about potential, dual-use, intentions, etc. Nothing at all like anything ready to use, let alone stockpiles. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/131 "2005-03-24T20:55:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Yet as far as I know, no country joined based on WMD evidence Err, yeah… ☹ ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/132 "2005-03-24T21:03:23Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Sure, but then that gets back to the question of scale – did any of these secret stockpiles contain enough WMDs to merit a crisis worthy of a full-blown invasion and war? I mean, an old mayo jar with anthrax spores hidden in the back of a refrigerator constitutes a “hidden stockpile,” but would be laughably low on the threat scale. No, I don’t think it gets back to scale at all. How laughable was much less than a jar full of anthrax when it showed up in the mail? > [@](#): > > Most of the stockpiles destroyed by the inspectors were in the early days(within three to five years of GWI). Quite. 3 to 5 years. Assume for a moment that you are the president. Further assume that it is your belief that Saddam has some stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Not huge amounts, possibly, but that you believe the most likely case is that he has some. After 9-11, are you really willing to wait 3 to 5 years for the inspection teams to stop saying they cannot say definitively that all WMD are gone? Also from that inteview: _It’s true that we did say that this [material] is unaccounted for. I also warned the Security Council that you cannot jump from that to saying that they have it. The only area in which I think we came close to saying that we think they have it was anthrax, because they were saying there was strong indications.  But I’ve gone through that very carefully with one of our inspectors, and I’ve concluded that it was not watertight. There was not compelling evidence of that, we didn’t go that far._ As I said before, Hans Blix was covering his ass\* the same way the CIA was only from a different direction. CIA was saying they believed WMD existed but could not prove it definitavely. Blix was saying he believed no WMD existed but could not prove it definitavely. The problem for the politicos then became who to believe. I’m only arguing that there were good reasons to go either way. And by extension that therefore belief in either one, once they turned out incorrect, should not be termed a lie. \*BTW, I really don’t mean anything derogatory by this phrase. I really mean that both the inspectors and the CIA were trying to report their conclusions and the truth about what those conclusions were based on. “Cover your ass” seems to be a more easily recognized way to describe the action. You just have to trust me on the lack of moral judgement in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/133 "2005-03-24T21:12:18Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I don’t think it gets back to scale at all. How laughable was much less than a jar full of anthrax when it showed up in the mail? Yeah, but that was your good American anthrax… ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/134 "2005-03-24T21:33:54Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Sure, but then that gets back to the question of scale – did any of these secret stockpiles contain enough WMDs to merit a crisis worthy of a full-blown invasion and war? I mean, an old mayo jar with anthrax spores hidden in the back of a refrigerator constitutes a “hidden stockpile,” but would be laughably low on the threat scale. Actually, it probably wouldn’t constitute a weapon, unless of course, it was weaponized. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/135 "2005-03-24T21:44:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Quite. 3 to 5 years. Assume for a moment that you are the president. Further assume that it is your belief that Saddam has some stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Not huge amounts, possibly, but that you believe the most likely case is that he has some. After 9-11, are you really willing to wait 3 to 5 years for the inspection teams to stop saying they cannot say definitively that all WMD are gone? Sure. Because – come on, say it with me, I know you can – as it was already well-known at the time, innuendos and outright lies to the contrary, **Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.** Might as well invade Argentina instead. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/136 "2005-03-24T21:51:06Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > No, I don’t think it gets back to scale at all. How laughable was much less than a jar full of anthrax when it showed up in the mail? Are you saying you _would_ go to war, invade another country, risk the lives of thousands of servicemen, and eat a Primus-knows-how-many billion-dollar deficit to prevent/avenge the deaths of a half-dozen anthrax letter victims? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/137 "2005-03-24T21:54:53Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Quite. 3 to 5 years. Assume for a moment that you are the president. Further assume that it is your belief that Saddam has some stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Not huge amounts, possibly, but that you believe the most likely case is that he has some. After 9-11, are you really willing to wait 3 to 5 years for the inspection teams to stop saying they cannot say definitively that all WMD are gone? Do I still believe that “national obliteration”, as Dr. Rice called it, deters Hussein? Or have I have I started to believe my own hype? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/138 "2005-03-24T21:58:05Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > No, I don’t think it gets back to scale at all. How laughable was much less than a jar full of anthrax when it showed up in the mail? Nothing funny about dying, but a Weapon of Mass Destruction a letter with anthrax spores on it certainly is not. > [@pervert](#): > > Assume for a moment that you are the president. Further assume that it is your belief that Saddam has some stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Not huge amounts, possibly, but that you believe the most likely case is that he has some. After 9-11, are you really willing to wait 3 to 5 years for the inspection teams to stop saying they cannot say definitively that all WMD are gone? Yes. Mitigating fact 1. My “belief” is based on evidence provided by people with a demonstrable conflict of interest(Iraqi exiles), and other second-hand sources. Mitigating fact 2. The evidence I “believe” in has been shown to be inaccurate by first-hand reports from the field following up on the leads. Mitigating fact 3. Iraq’s stockpiles were confirmed as 90%+ destroyed over a decade ago and inspections since that time showed a large portion of that \<10% was accounted for. Mitigating fact 4. Iraq’s regime was not working with any known terrorist groups, even the links to Palestinean groups he was supposedly sponsoring were weak. Mitigating fact 5. There were inspectors on the ground and security was already extremely tight on things coming out of or into Iraq. I doubt weapons could have been smuggled out and into terrorist hands during this period of heightened security. Mitigating fact 6. Massive numbers of Al Qaeda operatives had been forced onto the defensive in Afghanistan and were being rooted out in other countries. Mitigating fact 7. The cost of a war would likely be extremely high in both dollars(stressing any recovery which may be coming and sending debt levels up) and lives. Mitigating fact 8. There is no such thing as perfect security. Weighing the costs of the war versus the increase in security we could attain by an invasion over the containment strategy, I would have considered it a huge cost for an extremely marginal benefit. So, for all these reasons, yes. I would have waited and continued inspections, sanctions, and the finishing of the job in Afghanistan. I would not have committed my country to a war costing lives on both sides and billions of dollars over the situation as it was. I said this pre-war, having spent far too many hours reading reports from Blix, Kay, Powell, Rumsfeld, et. al. and still not finding a smoking gun. Enough evidence that, when combined with the nature of Saddam as a power-hungry asshole, I would have continued and possibly stepped up sanctions and inspections, but I wouldn’t have killed anyone over what I saw. Even Iraqi soldiers. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/139 "2005-03-24T22:24:35Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Do I still believe that “national obliteration”, as Dr. Rice called it, deters Hussein? > Or have I have I started to believe my own hype? Nothing wrong with your [memory](http://www.horstfischer.info/war1.htm): > [@](#): > > Ironically, some of the officials now advocating war used to recognize that Saddam could not employ nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. In the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, for example, National Security Advisor Rice described how the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. **“The first line of defense,” she wrote, “should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.”** If she believed Iraq’s weapons would be unusable in 2000, why does she now think Saddam must be toppled before he gets them? For that matter, why does she now think a nuclear arsenal would enable Saddam to blackmail the entire international community, when she did not even mention this possibility in 2000? (bolding mine) Good questions if I may say so myself. > [@Mtgman](#): > > Nothing funny about dying, but a Weapon of Mass Destruction a letter with anthrax spores on it certainly is not. I guess you were one of the few Americans that wasn’t impressed with Mr Powell’s dog and pony show at the UN. Good for you. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/140 "2005-03-24T22:35:22Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Sure, but then that gets back to the question of scale – did any of these secret stockpiles contain enough WMDs to merit a crisis worthy of a full-blown invasion and war? I mean, an old mayo jar with anthrax spores hidden in the back of a refrigerator constitutes a “hidden stockpile,” but would be laughably low on the threat scale. You do know that what was found in that guys fridge was not at all weaponized and was a research strain for an agri univ, don’t you? It should also be noted that Baker’s comments about a “resounding silence in the Iraqi desert” were well heeded by Hussein when he actrually _did_ have stockpiles of C&B weapons _and_ was “in extremis” (as the CIA calls it in their testimony) being actually in a state of war with the US and all. Hussein has a proven track record of obliteration avoidance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650.md?page=8)