# What's the betting on the election - can Bush win? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2003, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769 "2003-12-13T12:01:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/201 "2003-12-29T07:44:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > On preview, **rjung** , could you provide a cite conclusively proving that the labs could not have been used to produce bioweapons? C’mon, **Shodan,** you’re not a frosh newbie, are you? It’s the folks making the outrageous claims (“Saddam has mobile WMD labs!”) to prove they _are_ valid, not for us level-headed skeptics to prove they aren’t. Can’t prove a negative, and all that. As it stands now, **jshore’s** [_Guardian_ link](http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html) is the best answer we’ve got, whether you like it or not. (Though I suppose you _could_ take those mobile hydrogen trailers, melt them down into raw metals, reforge those metals into new equipment, ship in a bunch of additional wires and gear and whatnot, and assemble _that_ mess into a mobile WMD lab… but then, by that chain of argument, you could also say those trailers represented Saddam’s secret Transforming Robotic Decepticon Invasion Force Program™ as well. :rolleyes: ) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/202 "2003-12-29T12:23:37Z")
**Otara** , it was elucidator who made the following statement: “but that all of them, down to such crude weapons as mustard gas, have been proven to be non-existent.” I’m pointing out that there has been no such proof. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/203 "2003-12-29T12:33:25Z")
Fair enough, **John**. You take the “absolute zero” line on “proof”, that is, until every spoonful of sand in the Godforsaken Desert has been passed through a tea strainer, it has not been proven that the WMD are non-existent. That is, of course, entirely acceptable, so long as you maintain the same standards of proof for any of your _own_ assertions. You’re sure you want to go there? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/204 "2003-12-29T12:41:24Z")
I would think that even if the WMD were “destroyed”, evidence of that would be found. WMD don’t just vanish, they are disposed of. We know they once existed, so even if they were destroyed, the remains can be found. Since nothing has been found one way or another, the questoin is still open. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/205 "2003-12-29T12:57:12Z")
The _Tyrannosaurux Rex_ still runs amock in Montana, and maybe be implicated directly in the demise of buffalo herds. I can easily prove that they once existed, as bones have been found. “You’re full of beans!” cries **Adaher**! “Well”, I reply, “since nothing has been found one way or another, the question is still open.” As well, until God Almighty signs a statement confirming His non-existence, Creation Science remains an “open” question. Since it is pretty well known amongst GD-junkies that proving a negative is nearly impossible, demanding such as a standard of proof is not entirely kosher. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/206 "2003-12-29T13:35:21Z")
I’m surprised that any of you are still taken in by Bluesmans lies. I’ve seen more convincing performances by TV spiritualists. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/207 "2003-12-29T14:17:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > **The point is that the inspections were able to find and supervise the destruction of what they estimated to be most if not all of the weapons stocks and to make sure the nuclear program was discontinued. (And, nothing unearthed so far goes against this.) You have been unable to explain to us how the parts to one centrifuge / nuclear plans posed any credible threat to us and it has been noted to you how utterly inadequate one centrifuge would be for creating a nuclear weapon.** The discovery of the nuclear parts and plans, I would say, showed that Saddam had not discontinued his nuclear program - he put it into abeyance until after he had outworn the patience of the rest of the world. Then he could go back to what he was up to before the first Gulf War. The rationale for the invasion was Saddam’s failure to comply with the demands of the cease-fire. Certainly Bush (and everyone else) believed that Saddam was not complying because he was hiding WMDs. But the onus was on Saddam to come clean. Completely clean - not this stuff about “mostly”. Saddam, as has been said, was not a man to be trusted even a little bit. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*As for “mobile weapons labs”, what labs are we talking about? And, what chemical munitions was he able to retain? > \*\* My understanding was that three weapons labs have been discovered to date. Two are the ones the Guardian article is talking about, the other is somewhat under dispute, where the Pentagon and CIA say it is one of those that Powell was talking about, and [some officials at the State Department deny.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3008983.stm) The chemical munitions I mentioned are [these. See also the link at the bottom of the page regarding German involvement.](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > **What, we were worried about defending Iran from an attack by Iraq with chemical weapons? I wasn’t aware of this concern. If you are talking Saudia Arabia or something like that, he had never used such weapons against a U.S. ally. Also, were the Saudis asking us to invade to protect them?** Probably mostly Israel and Kuwait, but I imagine Saddam presented a threat to most of his neighbors. The Kurds could be considered friendly to the US, if in no other sense than “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, so Saddam had in fact used WMD against US “allies”. And Kuwait, the country Iraq invaded, is quite supportive of the overthrow of Saddam, so maybe the Saudis didn’t ask for protection (more than usual), but the most directly threatened country is OK with the invasion. If that helps at all. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*I don’t understand you here. You are saying there is no value to deterrence? That all you can do is pre-emptively attack because threat of retaliation will not deter him? > \*\* Not unless the threat is credible. Saddam thought he could get away with twelve more years of stalling. He thought wrong. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*And, we had evidence from the past that he was not suicidal and that he seemed to take actions only when he thought he could get away with it…with a small miscalculation in the case of the invasion of Kuwait, but a mistake he was unlikely to make on the scale of “Oh, I am sure they won’t react if I launch a WMD attack against them or their allies.” > \*\* Precisely. He thought he could get away with it. Although I don’t see all that much difference between thinking he could get away with the invasion of Kuwait and the gassing of the Kurds and so forth, and thinking he could get away with hiding away as much as he could and out-waiting the UN. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > **Having learned this lesson the hard way, you are suggesting that the correct response is to go after anyone who looks at us funny? this strikes you as an American way of doing business?** Characterizing a dozen years of the sort of thing Saddam was doing as “looking at us funny” is not meant as a serious argument, was it? Because it is quite similar to **elucidator** ’s foolishness about how nothing except nukes can be considered WMD. You and he will have to do a little better than that before your argument can rise to the level of being wrong. **pantom** - this is getting too long, but do you know why Scott Ritter thinks Iraq stopped the inspections in 1998 when he is now claiming that they were disarmed in 1995? And why the chief of UNSCOM says that his version of how the inspections worked is [“completely false”?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1446656.stm) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/208 "2003-12-29T14:37:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > I’m surprised that any of you are still taken in by Bluesmans lies. I’ve seen more convincing performances by TV spiritualists. I take **Bluesman** seriously because I know him. He’s a friend of mine. He really does work in military intelligence. I have no reason not to take him at his word about what he does there. But if he makes assertions that make no sense in the context of everything else we know, I still can’t let that go unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/209 "2003-12-29T14:54:30Z")
sorry Rufus, but it doesn’t cut it for me. And I’m not going to accept his word just because he works for Military Intelligence. He wouldn’t be using secret knowledge to score points on an internet messageboard if he was really serious about the knowledge. I think his Saddam claim was another just like he WMD that scored a hit a hell of a lot earlier than he expected. I can do it too. Watch. Expect to hear a big announcement with regards to Iraq from 10 Downing Street in the Near term, and not as far away and the end of next year. He’s using his actual credentials as a poor attempt to back up petty political squabbling, when those same credentials thoroughly prohibit him from ever having to actually prove anything. I don’t give a fig for his security clearance. where’s the WMD he was warmongering with earlier in the year? Nowhere. He was parroting the Bush party lie, and to me that’s been no better than a cheap psychic. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/210 "2003-12-29T15:36:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > sorry Rufus, but it doesn’t cut it for me. Whatever. I think taking him seriously, rather than equating him to a ‘cheap psychic’, is a reasonable thing to do, though YMMV. And I think we both agree that his assertions should be challenged on the basis of that which we know. > [@](#): > > And I’m not going to accept his word just because he works for Military Intelligence. Neither am I, as I’m sure you’ve noticed in this thread. > [@](#): > > I think his Saddam claim was another just like he WMD that scored a hit a hell of a lot earlier than he expected. I doubt it. He dropped his hint to us _after_ Bush had been notified, according to the news accounts. I think it’s quite reasonable to believe he knew what Bush knew. > [@](#): > > He’s using his actual credentials as a poor attempt to back up petty political squabbling, when those same credentials thoroughly prohibit him from ever having to actually prove anything. Agreed. What he _could_ have done, and what I was hoping he would have done, is to revisit what we already know, and somehow change our understanding of that. I was disappointed that he didn’t try. But his apparent expectation that we’d simply regard him as authoritative with respect to Iraqi WMDs and whatnot, plays about as poorly with me as it does with you. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/211 "2003-12-29T15:47:26Z")
rufus, I certainly don’t regard you as defending Bluesmans POV in this. He dropped a hint that in retrospect fits into a wider frame of reference. If it hadn’t have been Saddam, it could also have been any of the remaining playing cards at pretty much any stage between now and the election. It could have been any arms find, guerilla leader arrest or move towards local elections in Iraq and it till could have fit into the prediction. We spend enough time debunking TV psychics on these boards to not be able to see the same ploy at work again. If my prediction comes true, will that give me credence to have my opinion on the war to be unequivocally accepted? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/212 "2003-12-29T16:16:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > If my prediction comes true, will that give me credence to have my opinion on the war to be unequivocally accepted? Nope. But that’s the same stance I took with Bluesman, of course. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/213 "2003-12-29T16:24:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > The rationale for the invasion was Saddam’s failure to comply with the demands of the cease-fire. Certainly Bush (and everyone else) believed that Saddam was not complying because he was hiding WMDs. But the onus was on Saddam to come clean. Completely clean - not this stuff about “mostly”. Saddam, as has been said, was not a man to be trusted even a little bit. All this says is that _Saddam_ doesn’t have a case against the United States on this. So?? Exactly what does that prove to whom, in this thread? Regardless of whether Saddam had come ‘mostly’ clean or whatever, the US government has an obligation to act in the interests of the American people, and to level with them about its reasons for going to war. If the Bushies believed there weren’t WMDs, then it lied to us about the reasons for the war. If the Bushies believed there was an imminent WMD threat from Iraq, then (in its forget-the-WMDs war plan) it failed to do the former. > [@](#): > > My understanding was that three weapons labs have been discovered to date. Two are the ones the Guardian article is talking about, the other is somewhat under dispute, where the Pentagon and CIA say it is one of those that Powell was talking about, and [some officials at the State Department deny.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3008983.stm) You’re linking us to a _May 7_ news story??? Back then, the whole frickin’ _world_ was waiting to see if there was any evidence of WMDs in Iraq. I can’t remember, at this late date, whether that one was debunked, or whether the Bush admin backed off on any claim it may have made that the trailer in question really was suitable for manufacturing WMDs. But there were a whole string of incidents, between the beginning of the invasion and early summer, when claims were made on the news that the WMDs (or facilities for producing them) had been found, and all those claims were either debunked or retracted at the time. Bringing them back up again now, without a link to a more recent story with new findings, is horseshit. > [@](#): > > The chemical munitions I mentioned are [these. > See also the link at the bottom of the page regarding German involvement.](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm) I read the link. It demonstrates that he had chemical weapons in the 1980s. We know that. > [@](#): > > Characterizing a dozen years of the sort of thing Saddam was doing as “looking at us funny” is not meant as a serious argument, was it? It wasn’t my phrase, but I can’t see why not. Throughout the 1991-2003 period, Saddam’s military strength was way inferior to what it was before GWI. And we had him so well contained that he didn’t exercise sovereignty over the northern portion of his own country. Absent the ability to wreak massive long-distance death to his enemies (i.e. by having both long-range missiles and either (a) nukes, or (b) bio/chem weapons that could kill thousands of people when delivered by missile), which he didn’t have, _he was not a threat_. > [@](#): > > Because it is quite similar to **elucidator** ’s foolishness about how nothing except nukes can be considered WMD. That may or may not be foolishness. Check out [this piece](http://www.snopes.com/rumors/realdeal.htm) on Snopes. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/214 "2003-12-29T16:52:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\* > Was it that “absolutely” stated? I don’t think so. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\* > Feel free to provide an exact quotation, in context, with date. > \*\* Here’s a quote from Cheney, "… **there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein _now has_ weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is _amassing_ them to use** … **against _us_**. " Here it is again with a bit of context and a date. > [@](#): > > \*\*[Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention \*\*](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html) > \*For Immediate Release > Office of the Press Secretary > **August 26, 2002** \* > > Simply stated, **there is no doubt** that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. **There is no doubt** he is **amassing them** to use against our friends, against our allies, and **against us**. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors – confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth. That’ll be a dollar. 😉 In case you’re still worried that I’ve quoted him out of context as saying, “…there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” when really he meant something other than, “…there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” here’s the same quote with even more context: > [@](#): > > The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts. After his defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam agreed under to U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 to cease all development of weapons of mass destruction. He agreed to end his nuclear weapons program. He agreed to destroy his chemical and his biological weapons. He further agreed to admit U.N. inspection teams into his country to ensure that he was in fact complying with these terms. > > In the past decade, Saddam has systematically broken each of these agreements. The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents. And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago. These are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq; these are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses, in his own region or beyond. > > On the nuclear question, many of you will recall that Saddam’s nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback in 1981 when the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor. They suffered another major blow in Desert Storm and its aftermath. > > But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we’ve gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors – including Saddam’s own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam’s direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. > > Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances. This is especially the case when you are dealing with a totalitarian regime that has made a science out of deceiving the international community. Let me give you just one example of what I mean. Prior to the Gulf War, America’s top intelligence analysts would come to my office in the Defense Department and tell me that Saddam Hussein was at least five or perhaps even 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon. After the war we learned that he had been much closer than that, perhaps within a year of acquiring such a weapon. > > Saddam also devised an elaborate program to conceal his active efforts to build chemical and biological weapons. And one must keep in mind the history of U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. Even as they were conducting the most intrusive system of arms control in history, the inspectors missed a great deal. Before being barred from the country, the inspectors found and destroyed thousands of chemical weapons, and hundreds of tons of mustard gas and other nerve agents. > > Yet Saddam Hussein had sought to frustrate and deceive them at every turn, and was often successful in doing so. I’ll cite one instance. During the spring of 1995, the inspectors were actually on the verge of declaring that Saddam’s programs to develop chemical weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles had been fully accounted for and shut down. Then Saddam’s son-in-law suddenly defected and began sharing information. Within days the inspectors were led to an Iraqi chicken farm. Hidden there were boxes of documents and lots of evidence regarding Iraq’s most secret weapons programs. That should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself. > > To the dismay of the inspectors, they in time discovered that Saddam had kept them largely in the dark about the extent of his program to mass produce VX, one of the deadliest chemicals known to man. And far from having shut down Iraq’s prohibited missile programs, the inspectors found that Saddam had continued to test such missiles, almost literally under the noses of the U.N. inspectors. > > Against that background, a person would be right to question any suggestion that we should just get inspectors back into Iraq, and then our worries will be over. Saddam has perfected the game of cheat and retreat, and is very skilled in the art of denial and deception. A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with U.N. resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow “back in his box.” > > Meanwhile, he would continue to plot. Nothing in the last dozen years has stopped him – not his agreements; not the discoveries of the inspectors; not the revelations by defectors; not criticism or ostracism by the international community; and not four days of bombings by the U.S. in 1998. What he wants is time and more time to husband his resources, to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons programs, and to gain possession of nuclear arms. > > Should all his ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East, for the United States, and for the peace of the world. The whole range of weapons of mass destruction then would rest in the hands of a dictator who has already shown his willingness to use such weapons, and has done so, both in his war with Iran and against his own people. Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten percent of the world’s oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail. > > Simply stated, **there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein _now has_ weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is _amassing_ them to use** against our friends, against our allies, and **against _us_**. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors – confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth. > > Ladies and gentlemen, there is no basis in Saddam Hussein’s conduct or history to discount any of the concerns that I am raising this morning. We are, after all, dealing with the same dictator who shoots at American and British pilots in the no-fly zone, on a regular basis, the same dictator who dispatched a team of assassins to murder former President Bush as he traveled abroad, the same dictator who invaded Iran and Kuwait, and has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, the same dictator who has been on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism for the better part of two decades. I hope that this is sufficient context to make it clear that when Cheney said, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” he meant that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Please let me know how this works for you. There’re a number of similar statements on record for various other members of the current Bush Admin team if you’d like to see those as well. Just ask and send another dollar and I’ll be happy to google them up for you. A hint for doing this yourself: search [www.whitehouse.gov](http://www.whitehouse.gov) . How does your “nuanced justification” differ from “\*\*[not-lies\*\*](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3702020&highlight=notlie#post3702020)”, you know those “technically correct”, truthful statements with strong contextual and other connotations that imply somthing that’s not true? You know statements that’re truthful but not honest, like ad copy, wishes granted by malcontent genies, and deals with the Devil. What’s the difference? How _does_ one distinguish between “nuanced justification” and “\*\*[not-lies\*\*](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3725017&highlight=notlie#post3725017)”? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/215 "2003-12-29T16:59:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **All this says is that _Saddam_ doesn’t have a case against the United States on this. So?? Exactly what does that prove to whom, in this thread?** I am not sure what you mean. Saddam was not complying with the inspection regime. Therefore he, and those who are criticizing the invasion, do not have a case that the invasion was unjustified. I guess I don’t understand the distinction you seem to be drawing. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **Regardless of whether Saddam had come ‘mostly’ clean or whatever, the US government has an obligation to act in the interests of the American people, and to level with them about its reasons for going to war. If the Bushies believed there weren’t WMDs, then it lied to us about the reasons for the war. If the Bushies believed there was an imminent WMD threat from Iraq, then (in its forget-the-WMDs war plan) it failed to do the former.** I don’t see that betting that Iraq could be conquered quickly enough to prevent wide dissemination of WMDs to terrorists necessarily constitutes treason. YM obviously MV. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **I read the link. It demonstrates that he had chemical weapons in the 1980s. We know that.** Right. I was asked about Saddam’s chemical munitions. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **Absent the ability to wreak massive long-distance death to his enemies (i.e. by having both long-range missiles and either (a) nukes, or (b) bio/chem weapons that could kill thousands of people when delivered by missile), which he didn’t have, _he was not a threat_.** Unfortunately for Saddam, we now have information not available at the time - namely, that Saddam was apparently stalling the inspections for reasons other than that he had large stockpiles of WMDs. Based on his history (past possession of WMDs, past use of them against his enemies, past history of aggression against his neighbors, a dozen years of non-compliance with the terms of the cease-fire, a horrific human rights record, etc.) it is reasonable to conclude that he was hiding WMDs. And so nearly everybody concluded. IOW, the inspection regime was designed to demonstrate that Saddam had disarmed. He did not allow it to do so, for reasons of his own. Thus an invasion was necessary to establish the same facts, which it has (so far) done. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\*That may or may not be foolishness. Check out [this piece](http://www.snopes.com/rumors/realdeal.htm) on Snopes. \*\* This also I do not understand. **elucidator** claimed that only nukes could be considered weapons of mass destruction. This is an assertion that is simply false. [Here is a quick refutation, if you like,](http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html) although I would have thought it unnecessary. **Stoid** went on to claim that the invasion of Iraq was an example of the US invading “anyone who looked at us funny”, which is an assertion almost equally as silly. It is obviously a matter of opinion, and, as such, is much more difficult to refute. So if you are defending what **elucidator** said, you are indeed defending foolishness. If you are defending what **Stoid** said, then your definition and hers of what constitutes “looking at us funny” is too different from the rest of us to make the discussion worthwhile. IMO, YMMV, BYOB, LS/MFT. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/216 "2003-12-29T18:21:15Z")
> [@](#): > > … **elucidator** claimed that only nukes could be considered weapons of mass destruction. This is an assertion that is simply false… One feels almost churlish to interrupt friend **Shodan’s** victory dance, he has so few opportunities. But in the interest of veracity… Didn’t say it. If you tortured that meaning out of it, well, that’s your business. In the earliest stages of this symphony of mendacity, nukes were _the_ issue. Grim images of mushroom clouds spiced our leader’s speeches, suitcase nukes, so on and so forth. You will recall, I am sure, the famous incident wherein Fearless Misleader claimed to have an IAEA report which proved his point entirely, and I quote:“I don’t know how much more evidence you need”. You _may_ recall, depending on the selectivity of your memory, that such report was repudiated by the source, as it had, in fact, existed entirely within the fertile imagination of GeeDubya. Perhaps you will further recall how he and his Press Handler refused any further comment. Plonk! down the Memory Hole. Right about this time, the Bushiviks began to hedge thier bets. IIRC, just after the famous Turkish Uranium foolishness. Instead of saying “nukes” they began to refer to “weapons of mass destruction”, a long used code for nukes. It was about this time that they began lumping in chemical and biological weapons under this category, thus giving themselves the broadest possible cover. To no avail, as has been revealed. To sum up: no, I didn’t say that only nukes were WMD’s. I said nukes were the _original_ use of disinformation as a means of sowing fear amongst us, then they sequed into “WMD”'s, which included nukes and just about anything else they could think of. Hedging thier bets, as I said, since it was becoming increasingly clear nobody was buying. All of which, I hasten to point out, has proved to be just so much Bushwah. Friend **Shodan** is welcome to his own opinion, but not to his own facts, and certainly not at my expense. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/217 "2003-12-29T18:53:43Z")
**Shodan** : I wouldn’t expect Mr Butler to say anything else. The proof is in what happened: 1. No WMDs were found. 2. None were found despite a reward being offered, as **elucidator** pointed out. 3. Securing the ammo dumps and any other suspicious sites was way down on the priority list, as **rjung** points out, and that strand of evidence is the most damning strand to me. The proof is in the pudding. Obviously, Scott Ritter was right. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/218 "2003-12-29T19:33:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Fair enough, **John**. You take the “absolute zero” line on “proof”, that is, until every spoonful of sand in the Godforsaken Desert has been passed through a tea strainer, it has not been proven that the WMD are non-existent. > > That is, of course, entirely acceptable, so long as you maintain the same standards of proof for any of your _own_ assertions. > > You’re sure you want to go there? \*\* Of course I’ll go there. My assertations in this thread have been: 1)It has not been conclusively proven that WMD’s did not exist in Saddam’s Iraq. 2)At this point in time, the Democrats have not put forward a candidate that is likely to defeat Bush. If I have claimed more, please quote it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/219 "2003-12-29T19:56:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > I am not sure what you mean. > > Saddam was not complying with the inspection regime. Therefore he, and those who are criticizing the invasion, do not have a case that the invasion was unjustified. I guess I don’t understand the distinction you seem to be drawing. Then “read before posting” is my advice. If you read one paragraph, quote it, comment on it, then read the next paragraph, quote it, and comment on it, you may fail to see that Paragraph #2 answered the question you asked of Paragraph #1. > [@](#): > > I don’t see that betting that Iraq could be conquered quickly enough to prevent wide dissemination of WMDs to terrorists necessarily constitutes treason. YM obviously MV. OK, I’m exaggerating just a bit with the ‘treason’ claim; it’s Ann Coulter’s bad example. 🙂 But what did ‘quickly’ have to do with it? As the Bush apologists keep on pointing out, we had less than 200,000 troops trying to secure a region the size of California. Once WMDs were removed from a place we expected to find them, they could be _anywhere_. Which points up the necessity of being ready to take control of such sites the very moment Saddam’s troops _stopped_ controlling them. Instead, we left them unguarded for up to four days. Maybe not treason, but dereliction of duty on a grand scale. Rumsfeld put testing out his pet theory of warfare ahead of the war’s stated mission. If Saddam had bio/chem weapons, and if they represented a real threat to us, then his decision to do that has put us all at risk to a threat that had been contained up until then. > [@](#): > > Right. I was asked about Saddam’s chemical munitions. And you weaseled. You provided a link to the answer, not giving the slightest hint that it in no way supported your arguments. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately for Saddam, we now have information not available at the time - namely, that Saddam was apparently stalling the inspections for reasons other than that he had large stockpiles of WMDs. > > Based on his history (past possession of WMDs, past use of them against his enemies, past history of aggression against his neighbors, a dozen years of non-compliance with the terms of the cease-fire, a horrific human rights record, etc.) it is reasonable to conclude that he was hiding WMDs. And so nearly everybody concluded. His history, yeah. It really has two chapters: Chapter 1, where the US was in his corner - or he believed it was; and Chapter 2, after GWI. During Chapter 1 of his history, he had WMDs and used them with our tacit approval, and initiated wars with his neighbors, also with our tacit approval - or, in the case of GWI, with April Glaspie’s apparent assurance that we would stay on the sidelines. None of that has been repeated in Chapter 2. No wars, no use of WMDs, and no clear-cut evidence that he maintained WMD stockpiles for very long, or created new ones. IOW, the inspection regime was designed to demonstrate that Saddam had disarmed. He did not allow it to do so, for reasons of his own. Thus an invasion was necessary to establish the same facts, which it has (so far) done. His human rights record, and his chafing at the inspections regime (which any dictator worthy of the name would have done) doesn’t prove anything with respect to WMDs. We’ve got 'em, and our human-rights record is pretty good. Zimbabwe doesn’t, and its human-rights record is abhorrent. > [@](#): > > This also I do not understand. > > **elucidator** claimed that only nukes could be considered weapons of mass destruction. This is an assertion that is simply false. [Here is a quick refutation, if you like,](http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html) although I would have thought it unnecessary. **Stoid** went on to claim that the invasion of Iraq was an example of the US invading “anyone who looked at us funny”, which is an assertion almost equally as silly. It is obviously a matter of opinion, and, as such, is much more difficult to refute. > > So if you are defending what **elucidator** said, you are indeed defending foolishness. Your cite, which you term a ‘refutation’, says, “this is the generally accepted definition of WMD,” without explaining why. My cite calls the underlying validity of that definition into question. So there’s no way that your cite can be construed as a refutation of mine. > [@](#): > > If you are defending what **Stoid** said, then your definition and hers of what constitutes “looking at us funny” is too different from the rest of us to make the discussion worthwhile. IMO, YMMV, BYOB, LS/MFT. I’d poll the thread participants to see exactly who constitutes “the rest of us” in reality, as opposed to in your imaginings, but it hardly seems worth the trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/220 "2003-12-29T20:29:14Z")
**John Carter** You have it completely backwards. 1. The complete lack of any evidence of WMD’s despite man-decades worth of searches and compete freedom to look anywhere proves that there are no WMD’s in sufficient quanties in Iraq to justify the invasion. It turns out Saddam **was** complying with inspectors and he was telling the truth when he claimed not to have any WMD anymore. It was Bush who was lying then, and various members of this board who are lying now when they say that inspections weren’t working and Saddam was in breach. 1. **Any** Democrat would beat Bush in '04. The Republicans only (slim) chance of winning the '04 election is to nominate someone else. Bush is a complete fuckwit and the number of people who figure that out will only grow with time. Bush’s current re-elect number is about 44% which is a very bad sign for an incumbent. More importantly, that number isn’t going to go anywhere but down. This is Bush’s election to loose, and he’s already lost it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769.md?page=12)