# So THIS is the scam that Bush is going to use to justify his war... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2002, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157 "2002-12-03T04:33:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/41 "2002-12-03T17:40:12Z")
Oh my sweet Jesus, **Chumpsky** used Scott Ritter as a source. That’s like using the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ as a source. **Chumpsky,** kindly read Mr. Ritter’s interviews and articles, starting in August 1998. To make your life easier, just search for “ritter” in Great Debates. The man is conclusively a flat-out liar, and no credible person in the anti-war movement relies on him anymore. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/42 "2002-12-03T17:40:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Wrong \* > **You may be technically correct, but whether they were kicked out, or simply left because there was no point in continuing in the face of Iraqi games and obstruction, is a minor distinction.** Not at all, when four years later you have the same exact media sources repeating the falsehood of the inspectors being kicked out. I also notice that several of those sources indicated that the inspectors were pulled out before the UN Security Council had a chance to weigh in on the matter. Additionally, the US began a major bombing campaign immediately after the inspectors left - to me, this is all fairly strong proof that the US will act unilaterally if it feels it can get away with it. The US’ attitude towards the UN has been one of indifferent toleration at best; from being in serious default on their dues to the present Bush administration’s “multilaterally if we can, unilaterally if we must” stance on Iraq, it’s pretty clear any “concern” the US expresses for UN approval is merely a fig leaf for their actions. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/43 "2002-12-03T17:45:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Saddam forced through a useless NBC weapons program. Must-See Iraqi TV! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/44 "2002-12-03T17:54:01Z")
**Sua** , Please cite a specific instance of Scott Ritter lynig, please. Disagreeing with Shrub does not count as lying. This administration’s pattern of villifying veterans who have views which are inconvenient to them (McCain, Ritter, Cleland) has been reprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/45 "2002-12-03T17:55:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*_Chumpsky,_ kindly read Mr. Ritter’s interviews and articles, starting in August 1998. To make your life easier, just search for “ritter” in Great Debates. The man is conclusively a flat-out liar, and no credible person in the anti-war movement relies on him anymore. > \*\* What can you do but laugh? Well, Sua, you have demonstrated quite aptly that you are yourself quite a liar. I challenge you on your lies. ---
**Author:** ![Shah\_Jehan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/90ced4/32.png) [@Shah\_Jehan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shah_Jehan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/46 "2002-12-03T18:01:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nerrie \* > \*\*But what are the chances of the US having evidence that is sufficently sound to convince the likes of France, China and Russia? \*\* Bush doesn’t need to prove anything to France, China, and Russia. He has to prove it to the American people. Yes, that may constitute “indifferent toleration”. To **Diogenes’** statement that Bush does not have any proof: Bush has yet to show his proof (if he has any), but it would be hasty to claim that he doesn’t have it. I may just be arguing semantics since I share **Czarcasm’s** concern that Bush will not share his alleged proof with the American People. ---
**Author:** ![Ace\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Ace\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace_Face)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/47 "2002-12-03T18:04:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\*And how many sanctions did Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Chile have placed against them as a result of losing a war that they started? > > Oh, right, you forgot about that little Gulf War thingy, didn’t you? Yeah… that lil’ ol’ thing, such a bane to your arguments… \*\* Not a bane at all. The three countries I mentioned have a much stronger justification for invading the US than we have for invading Iraq. In the case of Chile and Guatemala, we directly interfered in their and elections, with horrofic long term results. In the case of Nicaragua we hired a mercenary army consisting of some of the worst thugs in the Western Hemisphere to conduct cowardly cross-border raids (AND tried to interfere in their elections). Have we even apologized? Of course I’m not referring to Security Council resolutions here, as with Isreal and Turkey. I’m referring to basic moral standards obvious to most three-year olds. But I understand that many people agree with **december** – might makes right. I can’t think of any examples of Iraq directly interfering in the internal affairs of the U.S., unless you count the USS Stark or the (possibly fabricated) assasination attempt on Bush I. The appointment of Henry Kissinger to the 9/11 comission should make it obvious that the current campaign has nothing to do with Saddam’s human rights record. The cynicism involved is breathtaking. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/48 "2002-12-03T18:12:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\ ***Sua** , Please cite a specific instance of Scott Ritter lynig, please. Disagreeing with Shrub does not count as lying. This administration’s pattern of villifying veterans who have views which are inconvenient to them (McCain, Ritter, Cleland) has been reprehensible. \*\* You asked for it… Kindly note that, in **all** of the following, the Bushies are not involved in any way. **All** of the following are Ritter’s own words. An article _written by Ritter_ in December 1998: > [@](#): > > Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. UNSCOM lacks a full declaration from Iraq concerning its prohibited capabilities, making any absolute pronouncement about the extent of Iraq’s retained proscribed arsenal inherently tentative. But, based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production [http://www.tnr.com/archive/1298/122...tter122198.html](http://www.tnr.com/archive/1298/122...tter122198.html) A November 1998 interview with Scott Ritter. > [@](#): > > Rose: How would you put pressure on Iraq without sanctions? > > Ritter: To me it is just glaringly obvious. What I will say is this. It’s > not my job to dictate national policy to any country. But I can be > diagnostic. What we have in Iraq is a situation that sanctions aren’t working, **Iraq is getting away literally with murder, they’re going to keep these weapons** and they’re going to get sanctions lifted eventually. Sooner than anybody believes. The Security Council is fractured and there is no unanimity for decisive action against Iraq. The resolution was created under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This means that Iraq has foregone aspects of its sovereignty, Iraq presents a clear and present danger to > international peace and security. **Iraq must disarm in order to stop presenting this capability and if they don’t disarm they can be compelled. This means the Security Council has the authorisation to either act as a council and do military action or have a member nation on its own undertake military action.** The United States is the country behind all of this. We built the coalition that went to war to liberate Kuwait, we pushed for the creation for this resolution at the end of the war to disarm Iraq and the United States pushed the special commission to carryout these very difficult inspections which resulted in guns being > pointed at the heads of inspectors. > > The US pushed it. We’re in this position because the US wanted Iraq disarmed. Iraq is not being disarmed right now. It’s up to the United States to compel Iraq. Sanctions aren’t working. They’re not going to work. There’s only one person to blame for all of this and it’s Saddam Hussein. He has to be held accountable. **I think the answer is quite obvious what has to happen. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I don’t have to say it.** [INSIDE UNSCOM: The Scott Ritter Tape](http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1998/msg00337.html) From Ritter’s Congressional testimony in September 1998 > [@](#): > > What I have indicated in the past is that the special commission had received sensitive information of some credibility, which indicated that Iraq had the components to assemble three implosion- type devices, minus the fissile material, and that if Iraq were able to obtain fissile material of the quality and of the proper physical properties conducive to such a weapon, then they could assemble three nuclear devices in a very short period of time. > [snip] > If the components of the implosion device are operational, if they have not been damaged through moving them around the country and hiding them from the inspection teams, and the fissile core is of the correct properties, it’s a matter of days, maybe weeks before they could be assembled into a device. [9/15/98 Excerpt from Scott Ritter Testimony on Iraq](http://www.nci.org/t/t91598.htm) Here’s part of a post I made earlier about Ritter: > [@](#): > > The more I read, the more this guy Ritter pisses me off. In June 2002, Ritter said: > > ## quote: > > ## ‘It was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed. Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring. The same was true of Iraq’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. As long as monitoring inspections remained in place, Iraq presented a WMD-based threat to no one.’ > > [http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq/weapons](http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq/weapons) > > ## If we could determine in 1997 that Saddam was disarmed, why did Mr. Ritter say in 1998 that quote: > > ## We have to resolve this situation and resolve it now. If that means the United States has to hike up its pants, roll up its sleeves and get in there and start swinging then by God get it done. Because if you don’t do it now you are going to have to do it later and the price you pay now is going to pale in comparison with the price you have to pay down the road. > > (from the November 1998 interview linked above) > If Mr. Ritter knew in 1997 that Iraq was disarmed, why was he advocating that the US invade Iraq in 1998? For kicks and giggles? Because he thought it would be fun to kill Iraqis? > > I shy away with a vengance from conspiracy theories, speculation about ulterior motives, and the like. But something just ain’t right here. Why did Ritter completely reverse himself, both on his opinion and on the facts over the past four years? Another golden oldie: > [@](#): > > Mr. 1998 Ritter said that > > ## quote: > > ## Since Saddam has blocked the inspectors from conducting any meaningful information-gathering for the past four months [from August 1998 - December 1998] > > [http://www.tnr.com/archive/1298/122...tter122198.html](http://www.tnr.com/archive/1298/122...tter122198.html) But Mr. 2002 Ritter says that Iraq “fully complied” with inspections. > > And how does Mr. 2002 Ritter mesh his assertion that Saddam has no WMD and would have to start “completely from scratch” with Mr. 1998 Ritter’s assertions in the above-linked article that: > > ## quote: > > ## Even today [December 1998], Iraq is not nearly disarmed. UNSCOM lacks a full declaration from Iraq concerning its prohibited capabilities, making any absolute pronouncement about the extent of Iraq’s retained proscribed arsenal inherently tentative. But, based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production. > > Mr. 2002 Ritter may well be right that if Iraq started building new factories to produce WMD we would notice. But he fails to account for Mr. 1998 Ritter’s belief that Iraq retained enough biological WMD to “fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missiles” and retained “several tons” of VX, as well as sarin and mustard gas. > > It’s crystal clear that either Mr. 1998 Ritter or Mr. 2002 Ritter was lying. I’m betting it is Mr. 2002 Ritter. All of the other evidence - including the UNSCOM reports - agree with Mr. 1998 Ritter. Mr. Ritter in 1998 and early 1999 was railing that Saddam was hiding significant amounts of WMD and was advocating military intervention. Yet in late 1999, **despite the fact that no inspections had taken place in the interim,** Mr. Ritter unequivocally stated: > [@](#): > > a September/October 1999 interview: > When you ask the question, “Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?” the answer is a resounding “NO!” “Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale?” “No!” “Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale?” “No!” “Ballistic missiles?” “No!” It is “no” across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability. [http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/Sep-Oct\_99/ScottRitter.html](http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/Sep-Oct_99/ScottRitter.html) Sadly enough, there are many other examples of Ritter talking out of both sides of his mouth - this is just a sampling. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/49 "2002-12-03T18:14:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*What can you do but laugh? > > Well, Sua, you have demonstrated quite aptly that you are yourself quite a liar. I challenge you on your lies. \*\* Oh, really, **Chumpsky?** Read my last post, and all the links, then repeat that. If you dare. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/50 "2002-12-03T18:16:28Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by SuaSponte_ > **[Scott Ritter] is conclusively a flat-out liar, and no credible person in the anti-war movement relies on him anymore.** OK, **Sua** , how about a [report](http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/iraq/dillon.htm) from another Iraqi inspector that says the same damn thing? A few relevant quotes: > [@](#): > > The IAEA also… supervised the removal from Iraq of **all weapons-usable nuclear material** - essentially highly enriched uranium (HEU) research reactor fuel - and accounted for and **placed under its control all other known nuclear materials** - some 500 tons of natural uranium in various chemical compounds and some 1.8 tons of low enriched (2.6 percent) uranium dioxide. The International Atomic Energy Agency _got everything they knew about and took it away_. Not to mention > [@](#): > > [supervising] the destruction of more than 50,000 square meters of factory floor space of nuclear program facilities, some 2,000 weapons-related items, and more than 600 metric tons of special alloys All this, according to the IAEA Report to the UN Security Council S/1997/779, by October 1997 - almost a full year before the inspectors were pulled out. Now how about between 1997 and 1998? It could be possible that Iraq had some stuff stashed away and was playing “build a nuke” under the table… [quote] by December 1998 the IAEA was satisfied that there were no indications of Iraq having: [ul][li] produced a nuclear weapon; [/li] [li]produced more than a few grams of weapons-usable nuclear material (HEU or separated plutonium) through its indigenous processes; [/li] [li]otherwise acquired weapons-usable nuclear material; or [/li] [li]retained any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.[/ul] **Furthermore, all of the safeguarded research reactor fuel, including the HEU fuel that Iraq had planned to divert to its crash program, had been verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA _and removed from Iraq._** [/li][/quote] So what’s the deal, **Sua**? Ritter’s been saying the same thing - “Iraq hasn’t got shit.” Is Scott Ritter exercising undue influence over Gary Dillon, or perhaps the entire IAEA? Is the IAEA making all this information up out of whole cloth and feeding it to Ritter? Or is Ritter actually perhaps telling the truth, and the whole act of branding him a liar is merely a convenient way for pro-war and pro-regime change hawks of dismissing him without actually having to consider the overwhelming weaknesses of their own position? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/51 "2002-12-03T18:25:15Z")
Actually, **Olentzero,** I have no dispute about nukes - UNSCOM verified that, at least as of their last inspection, Iraq’s nuclear program was eliminated. As for Ritter being a liar, **Olentzero,** as I pointed out, I relied on _Ritter’s own words._ In 1998 and early 1999, Ritter repeatedly asserted that Iraq was not disarming, that Iraq had consistently foiled inspection attempts, and that the U.S. and U.N. had to attack Iraq in order to compel disarmament. Read the links. Starting in late 1999, Ritter started repeatedly asserting that Iraq had completely disarmed, had acted in full compliance with inspections, and no war was appropriate. Again, read the links. The problem is – the evidence didn’t change between early 1999 and late 1999. We (and Ritter) had no new information about Iraq’s WMD. So Ritter had nothing on which to base his changed assertions of fact. Now, we can dispute _when_ Ritter was lying, either in the 1998/early 1999 period, or in the late 1999 through the present period. But what really can’t be disputed is that, during one of those time periods, he was lying. Sua ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/52 "2002-12-03T18:26:55Z")
“Because we are a sovereign independent nation.” So as it happens is Iraq. The US can’t invoke its own sovereignty as a rationale for violating another nation’s sovereignty. It’s also important to note that violation of UNSC resolutions does not, by itself, give any nation the right to unilaterally launch a war. It is for the UNSC to make that decision. Not to mention the many pragmatic arguments against war which I have gone through many times before. Suffice it to say that even if the UN was begging the US to attack Iraq it would still be a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/53 "2002-12-03T18:27:04Z")
Forgot to add the conclusion … And the fact that he is demonstratively a liar destroys his credibility and use as a source for **both** sides. I cannot rely on his early statements as evidence that Iraq has WMD - because he’s a liar. Nor can you rely on his later statements - because he’s a liar. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/54 "2002-12-03T18:28:52Z")
That’s pretty damn weak, Sua. I want a SPECIFIC example for a SPECIFIC lie. I CAN provide examples for Bush flat out lying. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/55 "2002-12-03T18:29:04Z")
Having read your latest posts, **Sua** , I can see how you’d be willing to trash Ritter as a reliable source on anything. But since when is reversing one’s position on a subject an immediate negation of one’s credibility? Cause for suspicion, sure, but not outright rejection. What caused the change? Who knows? Ritter may have known the Straight Dope all along and ultimately had an attack of conscience. Or he may have honestly believed what he said in 1997 and was convinced otherwise by evidence like the above. (I personally think it was the former.) Either way, the change of position is simply not grounds enough to dismiss Ritter as a source for anti-war activity - only investigating his claims and thoroughly debunking them is. Which, in this case, can’t be done. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/56 "2002-12-03T18:30:04Z")
I don’t think Ritter has ever said that Iraq was 100% disarmed or that it had co-operated with inspectors. I think his point was that inspectors had succeeded in destroying large quantities of weapons despite Iraqi obstruction. Which appears to be true and which is why as long as inspections are allowed to work war would be pretty stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/57 "2002-12-03T18:30:56Z")
At least as far as his current position is concerned, I should add. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/58 "2002-12-03T18:32:06Z")
Dammit, **Pundit** , quit interrupting me! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/59 "2002-12-03T18:37:43Z")
> [@](#): > > But I understand that many people agree with december – might makes right. I hardly think that **december** was saying that might makes right - it doesn’t. However, might doesn’t automatically make wrong, either. Certainly, one of the reasons that we are threatening to invade Iraq if they don’t disarm is because we can - if we couldn’t, we wouldn’t be making the threat. But that “we can” bit is a separate issue from whether or not we should. We could also invade Taiwan, if we wanted to. Or Cuba. Or any number of small countries. But we aren’t, which kinda kills the “we’re going to invade Iraq because we can” hypothesis. Certainly, when a cop shoots a criminal who is trying to kill you, he’s doing it because he can. Does that make his actions immoral? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![RobertTB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@RobertTB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobertTB)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157/60 "2002-12-03T18:38:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*That’s pretty damn weak, Sua. I want a SPECIFIC example for a SPECIFIC lie. > > I CAN provide examples for Bush flat out lying. \*\* Don’t leave us hanging! Please show us President Bush’s ‘flat out lying’! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-the-scam-that-bush-is-going-to-use-to-justify-his-war/140157.md?page=4)