I’m asking which Democrats are saying they always knew there were no WMDs. “people who said what Democrats have been saying ever since - it was clear that Saddam didn’t have any WMD.” Which Democrats have been saying that “ever since”? Not before the war, after. That’s what you meant, is it not?
The hell? The fact that there were inspections proves there *were *WMD’s? Please recall that there weren’t any found, and that when the US military moved in, they never bothered looking at any of the alleged sites but went straight to the Oil Ministry. Rumsfeld: “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Inspections *were *necessary to confirm the lack of WMD’s as a fact, and remove the claim of their existence and threat to the US as a pretext for war. You may recall that Bush ordered the war started anyway, with the inspections only a week or two from being completed and *proving *beyond question that the stated reason for it was a damned lie and that those many who believed it had been fooled.
I think what Shodan is trying to say, and he can correct me if I’m wrong, is that there are (supposedly) a bunch of Democrats running around now saying that they knew all along there were no WMDs. He’s wondering if any of them stated that before they voted on the AUMF in Oct 2002. My question to him is: who are these alleged Democrats who are now saying they knew all along there were no WMDs in Iraq? I’m not aware of any.
I think there were many folks who were saying that Bush’s evidence of WMDs (even in Jan 2003) was not convincing, but that’s not the same as saying “I know for a fact that there are no WMDs”. IIRC, the inspections had been suspended for years at the time the AUMF vote was taken, so there was really no way for any Congresscritter at the time to be certain of there being no WMDs.
Of course it’s difficult to say you know there are no WMDs, given the level of inspection to date such as they were. However, it is less difficult to say that you knew the administration was lying when they said that they were sure there were. Due to the relative lack of inspections, it was possible that there might have been substantial amounts that no one had found yet despite the administration lying when they said they had.
That’s nice. It has nothing to do with the point I posted on, though.
When people say that, they mean that it was clear before the invasion that Iraq had no WMD programs or stockpiles - not before the AUMF vote.
The timeline:
The AUMF was signed on October 16.
Inspections resumed on November 27.
The second UNMOVIC report was issued on February 14th, which stated that Iraq was actively cooperating with inspections and had no WMD programs, though work needed to be done to verify the destruction of old stockpiles.
On March 18th, Bush delivered to the speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate, as required by the AUMF, his written “determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
I was trying to explain why what you posted had nothing to do with what Shodan was saying. But, whatever…
You *might *have bothered to read the part of **Shodan’**s post that I quoted and was responding to. But you didn’t. You just went on to give what you thought his reply would be to the question you imagined he was being asked.
Not good practice.
Remember, that was an administration that could openly mock"the reality-based community"and actually get admired for it. Blame them, yes, but blame far more for those who deride reality itself, then and now, even if today it’s instead called fake news.
Yes, that’s pretty close.
Ludovic’s quote was an example of what I was talking about, but he has clarified.
So, fair enough, nobody has claimed either before or after the AUMF that they knew Saddam had no WMD all along.
Regards,
Shodan
That most “journalists,” especially those on TV, are lazy, shallow, gullible people.
That’s where the democracy failed; there was no meaningful dissent from within the political class, or from mainstream media. The default position from all sides wss the president is correct, to question the President is to be unpatriotic.
Put ‘Freedom fries’ in the search box up top Hell, after the event the NYT even apologised for being cowardly. Which is easy to do after the event.
I don’t know what happens when you put ‘jokes about the French’ in the search box but the mere questioning of a rush to war by the USA made all opposition the but of ridicule.
I repeat again: 94%.
Nor was there any meaningful dissent from the populace at large. The media and political class did as they were instructed by the masses. They would have paid a sharp price had they not done so.
The “democracy” was let down not by its leaders but by its own angry self.
No, that strawman was brought up only by yourself. The *actual *position you’re trying to denounce is why there were inspections.
“No dissent”, some have posted? Seriously? Someone claiming that must not have been alive then. The protests, the pleas not to do something so stupid, were loud and clear and massive, but were overcome by fear and, for lack of a better word, evil.
My perspective, more reinforcement of past lessons learned than anything really new, is this: Centuries-old religious wars will only be resolved after sufficient numbers of people on one side or the other are dead.
Looks like maybe the Shiites are winning currently, but only just barely so. They still have a long way to go. :dubious:
Just to be clear, I am not claiming the underlined part in you post, above. It would not at all surprise me if some folks have made a claim similar to that. But if we are to debate it, we’d need know who those people are, specifically, and what claim they made. Just saying “Democrats have said…” or “Republicans have said…” is not something I think is worth debating. Let’s get the specific quotes form the specific people and then we can talk. Having said that, there are any number of other posters here who would be more than happy to debate those type of nebulous statements. I’m just not one of them.
When Iraqi Christians told anyone who would listen, “Don’t remove Saddam, he protects us!”; and the US foreign service said that Saddam meant stability, and removing him was a bad idea; and the UN inspectors said they had things in hand; and the Iraqis had documentation showing that the WMD’s had been destroyed—we should have listened.
On the other hand, when the GOP had been telling me all my life that only they really understood foreign policy, or war, or economics; this had exactly as much basis as the grandiose claims of a religious cult. The GOP pundits and voters didn’t actually try to learn from history, let alone present data; and they didn’t choose wisdom over harebrained loyalty.
The real world is not a Kevin Sorbo movie.
Some prime ministers and presidents are stupid little boys who can be bullied or cajoled into joining someone else’s war with their nations’ forces. These politicians are not the sort of leaders that can actually manage a war, so one who recruits them as allies or leaders is as big a fool as they.
Personally I thought it was as likely as not that Iraq had WMD and by that I mean specifically that SH probably had some old chemical weapons( or the precursors for them, considering short shelf lives )squirreled away in a bunker somewhere. It seemed in character for him, paranoid old bastard that he was. I wasn’t at all shocked none were found, but was very mildly surprised.
My issue was more fundamental - I just thought that the existence of said WMD, even if real, were a shit excuse to start a war with Iraq. A handful or whatever of sarin gas warheads didn’t really make SH any more or less of a threat than his conventional arsenal.
There was no religious war of any kind occurring in Iraq when we invaded them.
Nothing. Just like the American government.