# So the Neocons had no real evidence of WMD in Iraq. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643 "2003-05-30T22:43:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/21 "2003-05-31T00:26:46Z")
I love it! Remember denial is always a river. šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/22 "2003-05-31T00:28:19Z")
isnā€™t alwaysā€¦geez ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/23 "2003-05-31T00:32:13Z")
I discussed this with a friend the other day. It is clear that when Wolfowitz links ā€œterrorismā€ to Iraq it is attempting to link al qaeda with Hussein. If I keep saying ā€œthe WTC was attacked by terroristsā€ and in the next sentence I say ā€œIraq supports terroristsā€, it inexorably links the two There is no question that Bush has been desperate to link al qaeda an Iraq, to the extent that he got a special intelligence team to link the two. You canā€™t possibly think that the fact that about half of Americans believe that the WTC was attacked by Iraqis is coincidence. ---
**Author:** ![Daydreamer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9a140/32.png) [@Daydreamer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daydreamer)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/24 "2003-05-31T00:36:41Z")
I second Decemberā€™s suggestion for reading the transcript. This includes you too, December - youy missed a key part. Here is the relevent section, straight from teh transcript, with no edits other than the bold tags: > [@](#): > > Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Ladenā€™s rage about that, which heā€™s built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that thereā€™s a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into ā€“ > > Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. **The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason** , but ā€“ hold on one second ā€“ > > (Pause) > > Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to ā€“ > > Wolfowitz: ā€“ **there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people.** Actually I guess you could say thereā€™s a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again. Wolf cited bureaucratic reasons first, which many liberals are using against him, paused (and according to some, consulted with an aid), then gave the three reasons which the conservatives are using to support him. The former makes it look like the White House had a target and was simply looking for the crime, while the latter portrays it as a logical extension of the post 9-11 antiā€“terrorism campaign. The question then is thus: Is the first quote a bit of truth that accidentally slipped out, and the second the patter to cover it up? Or did he merely mispeak the first time and correct himself the second? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/25 "2003-05-31T00:37:04Z")
Utter Bushwah! We were sold this steaming cup of crappucino on the relentlessly repeated assertion that Iraq was a threat to _us_. Is anyone seriously going to try and contend that we would have assented to a war with Iraq because of our heart-rending compassion for the poor Iraqis? That is the utterest crock of shit I have ever seen posted with a straight face. Perhaps someone should resurrect the snark-fest of time past, about how the stupid libruhls were going to be so embarrassed _one day_ after we win in Iraq and we find the ā€œmassive stockpilesā€: thousand of gallons of nuclear anthrax, stacked up to the ceiling! Scuds galore! And now theyā€™re trying to float a new trial balloon, about sending another team of hunters in, the _real_ team this time, they were just kidding around before, but now theyā€™re serious. Uh-huh. Sure. You bet. Gonna check the _real_ sites, not the ones before, not the oneā€™s we fed to the inspectors, but the real ones this time. Just the cherry on top of this turd sundae. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/26 "2003-05-31T00:40:30Z")
[http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=030530&cat=news&st=newsiraqintelligencedc](http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=030530&cat=news&st=newsiraqintelligencedc) No, _this_ is the cherry on top of the turd sundae! (Thanks, **Hentor** : couldnā€™t find the link.) ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/27 "2003-05-31T00:47:07Z")
[scans the first sentence of **elucidatorā€™s** post, decides itā€™s safe to ignore the rest] Anyway, back to the issue at hand: light strand: > [@](#): > > Jeff, what the hell are you talking about? There havenā€™t been any WMD found yet which nullifies two of your three arguments. No WMD, no al qaeda link, just bad-guy again. > > Give me something I can chew on! This is getting too easy! No, it does nothing of the sort. First of all, weā€™re not done looking, and the fact that there are no WMDs _now_ doesnā€™t mean they werenā€™t there immediately before the war. Secondly, 1441 didnā€™t simply forbid Saddam from possessing WMDs. It stated that he had to get rid of what we knew he had, and _properly document their destruction_. That last bit is a sticking point. If a cop busts me for overdue registration, Iā€™m required to both register the car, and then report it to the PD. If I donā€™t do the latter, Iā€™m still in violation of the law. Same thing with 1441. Chew on _that_. šŸ˜‰ Jeff ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/28 "2003-05-31T00:51:47Z")
Youā€™re quite safe, **Jeff**. All I have are facts, cites, that sort of thing. You have the Faith That Surpasseth All Understanding. And youā€™re welcome to it. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/29 "2003-05-31T01:04:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > **The people that seem confused that there were always several reasons to go into Iraq - including a likelihood of WMDs, enormous human rights violations, violation of UN charter, and several other geopolitical factors - either donā€™t pay much attention to the news, or are ā€œconvenientlyā€ forgetting as much in order to score a few cheap political points. Iā€™d put my money on the latter. So which is it, folks? Are you ignorant, or dishonest?** I agree with you: I did hear a number of reasons for the war. Saddam has WMDs, and is therefore thumbing his nose at the UN. Heā€™s a Bad Guy, and does Bad Things to his citizens. We need to get rid of him. However, there are two subtleties that such a list (which could, of course, be expanded) misses entirely. The first is the timing of these reasons. I wish someone were able to construct a timeline of, say, CNN articles detailing the shifting rationale of the Administration. Because ā€“ and this is my general impression, so donā€™t ask me for a cite ā€“ it seems to me that we didnā€™t hear fuckall about Saddamā€™s atrocities until after the war was underway. What do I remember hearing about constantly? I remember hearing about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hand in hand with my first subtlety is this one: the _importance_ given to each reason in our List of Reasons to Invade Iraq. And, letā€™s face it, Numero Uno, Primo Ganja, Head Cheese Super Number One Reason was that Saddam, with his WMDs, posed an **immediate** threat to the US. Not a threat only after locating the secretly hidden weapons. Not a threat after unearthing a bottle of anthrax from under two miles of sand dune, like a toxic genie in a bottle. An **immediate** , ā€œItā€™s Cominā€™ This Way!ā€ threat. But you donā€™t have to take MY opinion of what was stressed. Straight from the horseā€™s mouth, [The State of the Union Address](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html#): > [@](#): > > Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop **anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons** for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used **poison gas** to _murder thousands of its own citizens_ ā€“ leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections ā€“ then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. > > States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking **weapons of mass destruction** , these regimes pose a **grave and growing danger**. They could provide these **arms** to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could **attack** our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. > > We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver **weapons of mass destruction**. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nationā€™s security. > > Weā€™ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, **while dangers gather**. I will not stand by, as **peril draws closer and closer**. The United States of America will not permit the worldā€™s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the **worldā€™s most destructive weapons**. Iā€™ve **bolded** that which deals with the Immediate Threat of WMDs, _italicized_ that which deals with Saddamā€™s atrocities, and underlined that which deals with ignoring the UN. Enjoy! Quix ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/30 "2003-05-31T01:07:15Z")
Great post **quixotic78**. But they will deny it. ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/31 "2003-05-31T01:10:52Z")
So what youā€™re saying Jeff is not that we started a war for WMD, or for bad-guy, or for any other reason but bad paperwork? Saddam shoulda got a better secretary. How does one document the destruction of something they claim they never had? ā€œJeff, I burned that 45 ft yacht in the Bay of Bengalā€¦ just in case youā€™re wondering. I have the paperwork, so you _know_ it actually happened!ā€ Vs, ā€œWhat yacht, I ainā€™t got no yacht. Destroyed it, I ainā€™t got one, how could I get rid of it?ā€ Itā€™s no win. I forge the paperwork or deny the yachts existence either way if youā€™re convinced I had the yacht, but you canā€™t find it, Iā€™m damned if I do, and damned if I donā€™t. Anyway it was reported to the UN in 1991. I have no idea how may times I will have to post this [link](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/unscom-iaea_kamal-brief.htm), but oh well. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/32 "2003-05-31T01:42:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quixotic78 \* > Iā€™ve **bolded** that which deals with the Immediate Threat of WMDs, _italicized_ that which deals with Saddamā€™s atrocities, and underlined that which deals with ignoring the UN. Enjoy! > \*\* Cool. Except, of course, that the final three paragraphs are about terrorist-supporting countries collectively (or, more narrowly construed, about the three specific countries mentioned). So in the paragraph specifically about Iraq, he mentions supporting terror once, the threat of WMD once, the past use of WMD as a atrocity against his own people once and ignorning the UN once (once and a half, if you include ā€œsomething to hideā€). In that order. Yes? Cuz I remember it differently. I recall that it was all the full list until we got conned into going to the UN. Iā€™m certainly willing to be corrected. But the State of the Union Address certainly does nothing to alter that memory. [From his press conference on March 13, 2002](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/iraq/20020313-8.html) > [@](#): > > Every world leader that comes to see me, I explain our concerns about a nation which is not conforming to agreements that it made in the past; _a nation which has gassed her people in the past_; \*\*a nation which has weapons of mass destruction and apparently is not afraid to use them. \*\* > > And so one of the ā€“ what the Vice President is doing is heā€™s reminding people about this danger, and that we need to work in concert to confront this danger. Again, all options are on the table, and ā€“ but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to **threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction.** Theyā€™ve agreed not to have those weapons; they ought to conform to their agreement, comply with their agreement. [A non-specific bad-guy statement (not to the press, but in a letter to Congress ā€“ possibly not probative to the issue at hand)](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/iraq/20020801-6.html) > [@](#): > > The Government of Iraq continues to engage in activities inimical to stability in the Middle East and hostile to U.S. interests. Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. [From remarks to the press (I think it was the ā€œnow watch this driveā€) incident](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/iraq/20020810-3.html) > [@](#): > > I described them as the axis of evil once. I described them as an enemy until proven otherwise. They obviously, you know, **desire weapons of mass destruction**. I presume that he still views us as an enemy. I have constantly said that we owe it to our children and our childrenā€™s children to free the world from **weapons of mass destruction in the hands of those who hate freedom**. This is a man who has _poisoned his own people, I mean heā€™s had a history of tyranny._ > > Q Iā€™m sorry, if I could follow up. Are you surprised that you havenā€™t been able to build more support within the region and within Europe for taking action? > > THE PRESIDENT: Well, Stretch, I think most people understand he is a danger. But as Iā€™ve said in speech after speech, Iā€™ve got a lot of tools at my disposal. And Iā€™ve also said I am a deliberate person. And so Iā€™m ā€“ weā€™re in the process of consulting not only with Congress, like I said I do the other day, but with our friends and allies. And the consultation process is a positive part of really allowing people to fully understand our deep concerns about this man, _his regime_ and his **desires to have weapons of mass destruction.** > > Last question, and then Iā€™ve got to go chip and putt for a birdie. (Laughter.) It was a good drive. > > Q It looked kind of right. > > Q Do you think the American people are prepared for casualties in Iraq? > > THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that that presumes thereā€™s some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable. What I do believe the American people understand is that \*\*weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for ourselves, our allies. \*\*They understand the concept of blackmail. They know that when we speak of making the world more safe, we do so not only in the context of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but nations that have proven themselves to be bad neighbors and bad actors. I didnā€™t bother to make the non-specific ā€œheā€™s a bad manā€ stuff in blue or anything like that. ---
**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:** [May 31, 2003, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/33 "2003-05-31T01:46:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*[http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=030530&cat=news&st=newsiraqintelligencedc](http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=030530&cat=news&st=newsiraqintelligencedc) > > No, _this_ is the cherry on top of the turd sundae! > > (Thanks, **Hentor** : couldnā€™t find the link.) \*\* No problem. I am astounded at that report. Here is a mainstream news source presenting a story that says that the Bush administration willfully cherry-picked information to misrepresent the case against Iraq. Not that they were simply given shoddy information, but that they were specifically selecting information to shoehorn into a predetermined framework. No, El Jeffe may not be impressed enough to read past the first line, but it seems a pretty significant step to me. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/34 "2003-05-31T02:08:05Z")
So let me see if Iā€™ve got this right, here. The Bushistas didnā€™t really make the threat of WMDā€™s the primary selling point of this international bitch-slapping. Or, at least, if they did, it was merely a selling point, the real issue was the liberation of the Iraqi people. And, having acheived this primary focus, the question of the existence of any real and immediate threat to the US becomes irrelevent? Well, you know, some guys didnā€™t get the memo. Time and again, when our media whores were falling all over themselves to gush over Our Troops, they would stick thier microphones in some GIā€™s face, and he would talk about how proud he was to be protecting his country. 'Cause thatā€™s what _he_ thought he was there for. Now, where did he get that silly idea? From his Commander in Chief, mayhap? ( **Hentor** : well, donā€™t be too hard on him. Cognitive dissonance on that scale is probably pretty tough to deal with. Iā€™m just guessing, of course, but still.) ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/35 "2003-05-31T02:10:15Z")
**Straight down the memory hole.** What has to happen around here before some people realize that they were lied to and acknowledge that fact. We were lied to as badly as President Johnson lied to us about the Tonkin Gulf Incident, as badly as President Nixon lied to us about the Watergate Cover-up, as badly as President Regean lied to us about the Contra Fighters and the dealings with Iran, as badly as President Clinton lied to us about what he had been doing in his spare time. You were lied to, deliberately and with intent to deceive. Donā€™t tell me that President Bush was lied to or received bad intelligence. He got the intelligence he wanted and when conventional intelligence would no give it to him he went looking for flimsy and unreliable intelligence that would tell him what he wanted to hear. Wolfowitz suffered an outbreak of candorā€“the principal rational for the war was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was about to use them against us and our friends. This was the principal rational because it was the one the government agreed on. That means the other reasons, terrorism links, bad treatment of his own people, had their advocates within the inner circle but there was no consensus on them. Weapons of mass destruction and the presence of an imminent threat of their use was the pretext, rational, excuse, publicly declared reason for unilateral invasion without UN sanction and with the substantive support of no one but the UK. WMD were the nail we hung the war on. To pretend otherwise at this late date is worse that disingenuous, it is dishonest. Where is the sense of out rage among the limited government, let the market make the decisions, preserve fundamental American liberties types? Canā€™t you see that the honor, power and prestige of the United States, its moral standing, it claim to the respect of decent people through out the world, has been sold for a tawdry and demonstrable lie? Or, is neo-conservative really neo-imperial? ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/36 "2003-05-31T02:48:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > **Cool. Except, of course, that the final three paragraphs are about terrorist-supporting countries collectively (or, more narrowly construed, about the three specific countries mentioned).** Scarily, you might be right. This could just be the beginning, if youā€™ll pardon me a moment of doomsaying. But you know what? It doesnā€™t matter. Hereā€™s a quick word count, from the SotU paragraphs I posted and the quotes you posted: Danger (or dangerous): 7 Threaten (or threat): 4 Peril: 1 But it was bullshit! There was no danger, there was no threat, there was no peril. Just ghosts under the bed. Bah, I think Iā€™ll go join **elucidator** , because Iā€™m starting to get steaming mad (at my govā€™t, not at anyone here). I just hope that sheer exhaustion doesnā€™t win outā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/37 "2003-05-31T02:51:13Z")
Well, we ainā€™t much, but weā€™re all weā€™ve got. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/38 "2003-05-31T04:17:59Z")
Donā€™t dismiss all of these attempts to argue that weā€™ve been decieved by the administration as hopeless. I was personally supportive of the war in itā€™s early planning stages in November and December of 2002. My opinon was bolstered by Colin Powellā€™s presentation to the UNSC, and I have no illusions against, as others have said, that WMDā€™s were the nail upon which we pinned this war. Now, I have come to have serious doubts and grave concerns about the intelligence gathering and public presentations made by the Bush Administration to the American public. I will give more time and the benefit of the doubt to the administration, but these charges of WMD must be held to bear weight. If these issues are not addressed resolved by the 2004 election, I will offer my vote to someone beyond Bush (no way Iā€™m voting Democrat, so I donā€™t know who this will be). It appears to me that this was at best, self-deception of both the Administration and the Public, or at worst, a concerted conspiracy to lie to gain public support for a war of uncertain aims. Donā€™t let this die. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/39 "2003-05-31T04:20:02Z")
So the reason to go to war was really mainly that Saddam was bad to his own people? Is this the same Bush who during the election said that the US should not be the worldā€™s policeman but should only get involved to protect vital US interests? One country doesnā€™t generally invade another over its treatment of its own people. This was fought over vital US interests. But if it wasnā€™t WMD and it wasnā€™t direct links to Al Queida, then what was it? What volatile greasy SUV powering slime was this war all about? ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643/40 "2003-05-31T04:26:31Z")
As much as I try to avoid pointless speculation, it seems awfully convienent that during a fairly long phone interview, Wolfowitz had to ā€œtake a callā€ or something immediately following his comment about ā€œsettling on WMDs as the core reasonā€ for the invasion of Iraq. We then hear from Kevin Kellems (his Special Advisor and media consultant) for the first time. :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-neocons-had-no-real-evidence-of-wmd-in-iraq/178643.md?page=3)