What's the betting on the election - can Bush win?

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 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: )

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.

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?

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.

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.

I’m surprised that any of you are still taken in by Bluesmans lies. I’ve seen more convincing performances by TV spiritualists.

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.

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.

The chemical munitions I mentioned are these.
See also the link at the bottom of the page regarding German involvement.

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.

Not unless the threat is credible. Saddam thought he could get away with twelve more years of stalling. He thought wrong.

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.

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”?

Regards,
Shodan

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.

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.

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.

Neither am I, as I’m sure you’ve noticed in this thread.

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.

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.

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?

Nope. But that’s the same stance I took with Bluesman, of course.

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.

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.

I read the link. It demonstrates that he had chemical weapons in the 1980s. We know that.

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.

That may or may not be foolishness. Check out this piece on Snopes.

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 useagainst us. "

Here it is again with a bit of context and a date.

That’ll be a dollar. :wink:

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:

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 .
How does your “nuanced justification” differ from “**not-lies**”, 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**”?

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.

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.

Right. I was asked about Saddam’s chemical munitions.

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.

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, 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

OK, I’m exaggerating just a bit with the ‘treason’ claim; it’s Ann Coulter’s bad example. :slight_smile: 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.

And you weaseled. You provided a link to the answer, not giving the slightest hint that it in no way supported your arguments.

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.

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.

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.

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.