# Which leading Democrats also thought Saddam had WMD programs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569 "2005-10-23T22:56:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/81 "2005-10-24T23:33:01Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I guess I’ve never understood why this is such an important point for the Dems/anti-war crowd. Its like they want to revise history so that its ONLY those lieing Republicans who thought Saddam had WMD. For me, it’s not that Bush claimed Saddam had WMD that constituted a lie: it’s his specific statements about a specific UN report that constituted a lie. And I’ve never seen evidence that any Democrat made a similar statement about having seen a nonexistent UN report, or anything analogous. I’m willing to attribute the Democrats’ mistakenness to incompetence, same as I attribute most Republican’s. Bush, however, was lying about the UN report. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/82 "2005-10-25T00:58:37Z")
**jshore** : I wouldn’t find much to disagree with in your post #78. But that doesn’t change the fact that many Democrats thought there were WMDs, and many of them continue, **to this very day** , to say they don’t regret their votes. I’m not trying to exonerate Bush here. It’s his war. He’s responisble. He sold this war to Congress. But they bought it (or most of them did), and they didn’t have to. ---
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/83 "2005-10-25T01:07:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I also said that I approved the use of the resolution to help pressure Saddam into accepting inspectors, and that Bush did this well. But when the WMDs were not found, why go to war on the pretext that there was an imminent threat (with images of mushroom clouds?) > To review, here is a simplified timeline > > [ul] > [li]Assumption that Saddam had WMDs, based on past history and resistance to inspections[/li][li]Joint UN/US pressure for inspections, backed by the resolution[/li][li]UN inspections, mostly unimpeded. The palaces, never visited before, were now fair game[/li][li]Invasion of Iraq based on an imminent threat to the US when nothing was found[/li][/ul] > > What’s wrong with this picture? Voyager: Since I began this thread to gather information (and some posts have been truly helpful; thank you), could you point me to the place where Bush uses the phrase, “imminent threat”? I thought he said, “growing threat” but you may be right. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/84 "2005-10-25T01:08:11Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > To say that Congress turned over to the president its authority to declare war in hopes that the president wouldn’t use that authority is laughable one the face of it. Any Senator who believes that has no business in the Senate. But, **John** , this isn’t so hard to understand. The idea was that by authorizing this use of force, one was providing Saddam with the necessary incentive to allow the inspectors in and allow them free access to suspected sites. And, guess what, it worked! (Although maybe a resolution that didn’t have Congress give up all this authority would have too…We just don’t know!) The only problem was that Congress misjudged who the more dangerous person was. The CongressCritters who voted for the resolution presumably thought Saddam Hussein was potentially more dangerous. As it turned out (and was apparent to some of us and, yes, also Russ Feingold at the time), George W. Bush was the more dangerous threat to our security. I agree with you that Congress should never have ceded this authority to Bush…but I don’t think they necessarily shouldn’t have as a matter of principle but rather because it was stupid to trust him with such authority. (It is an interesting and debatable question whether Congress should ever cede this authority…But, one could at least make reasonable justifications for this to be the case.) [Looking at your latest post in preview, I realize that we are probably down to a difference in emphasis. We don’t seem to really disagree on the facts…It is just that I am emphasizing my anger at the perpetrator of the fraud and you are emphasizing yours towards the people who allowed themselves to be swindled. ---
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/85 "2005-10-25T01:14:15Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > It is such claims as “everyone believed he had them” that make up the GOP’s attempts to re-write and distort the historical record. In fact the OP is attempting exactly that distortion, following his cue from Republican Central. Sevastopol: would you please point me to the evidence that Bush did not act in good faith. I have read many opinions in that light, but nothing that would persuade a neutral person. I read, for example, Woodwards book “Plan of Attack”, certainly no whitewash and not terribly sympathetic to Bush. The book does not prove, though, that Bush knew one thing for certain, but told something else. And what is your evidence that I am following a cue from “Republican Central”? I must say I fight that rather inappropriate and uncalled for. ---
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/86 "2005-10-25T01:17:09Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > For me, it’s not that Bush claimed Saddam had WMD that constituted a lie: it’s his specific statements about a specific UN report that constituted a lie. And I’ve never seen evidence that any Democrat made a similar statement about having seen a nonexistent UN report, or anything analogous. > > I’m willing to attribute the Democrats’ mistakenness to incompetence, same as I attribute most Republican’s. Bush, however, was lying about the UN report. > > Daniel Which report specifically did Bush lie about? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/87 "2005-10-25T01:17:40Z")
> [@Lynwood Slim](#): > > Sevastopol: would you please point me to the evidence that Bush did not act in good faith. Have you checked out [this post and the links it contains](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6717602&postcount=28)? I believe they set forth a very strong case that Bush was lying about a particular UN Document; this, coupled with other distortions of the record by his administration (e.g., his claims about aluminum tubes, the yellowcake debacle, misrepresenting the UN’s more recent findings) suggest a consistent pattern of deception by the administration. [This thread is a great read, start to finish, on the subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298099). Daniel ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/88 "2005-10-25T01:18:34Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Looking at your latest post in preview, I realize that we are probably down to a difference in emphasis. We don’t seem to really disagree on the facts…It is just that I am emphasizing my anger at the perpetrator of the fraud and you are emphasizing yours towards the people who allowed themselves to be swindled. Bush is an idiot. Feel better? 🙂 I guess I’m just able to criticize Democrats without feeling like I’m endorsing Republicans by doing so. This thread is about Democrats, that’s all. I’m a big believer in original intent. If this thread were about Republicans, I’d be happy to trash them. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/89 "2005-10-25T01:20:33Z")
> [@Lynwood Slim](#): > > Which report specifically did Bush lie about? Simulpost! I really encourage you to read those links if you’re curious on this subject, because the argument went back and forth for awhile, covering the subject in fair detail, and I don’t feel like rehashing all those old points. The central contention is this: > [@](#): > > In early September, the president stated that, according to a 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iraq was within six months of developing nuclear weapons. A spokesperson for the IEAE denied that any such report existed. When asked for clarification, a White House spokesperson said that the report was from 1991, not 1998. Again, the IEAE denied that it had issued such a report. For more details on this, check out the linked threads, which show the President’s transcripts and other relevant documents. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/90 "2005-10-25T01:22:46Z")
Left Hand of Dorkness, by any chance did you check out my Factcheck link earlier? They also have an article discussing the dread yellowcake. Just for balance I recommend also checking that out. > [@John Mace](#): > > Bush is an idiot. I’d say he’s a ‘fool’ more than an ‘idiot’, but I essentially agree with you. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/91 "2005-10-25T01:28:41Z")
> [@Lynwood Slim](#): > > Voyager: Since I began this thread to gather information (and some posts have been truly helpful; thank you), could you point me to the place where Bush uses the phrase, “imminent threat”? I thought he said, “growing threat” but you may be right. Yes, the Bush defenders have made much of this word parsing in saying that Bush never in fact used the phrase “imminent threat”. But, that is what he communicated to the point where [this](http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html) article in the Los Angeles Times characterized him as having said that (in the title of their article on his State of the Union address in January 2003). Given that the L.A. Times serves a large population, you would think that the Bush Administration would have been quick at the time to correct this if they saw it as a severe mis-characterization of what Bush had in fact said. So, I guess all you have to do is go to [whitehouse.gov](http://whitehouse.gov) and dig up where the Administration set the record straight, right? And, just in case you think that the L.A. Times is too much of a liberal source, [here](http://www.rferl.org/features/2002/10/08102002135121.asp) is a piece on the speech in RadioFreeEurope / RadioLiberty that chose the headline “Iraq: Bush Tells Americans Saddam Is An Imminent Threat”. [Here](http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970) is another rundown of all the ways in which the Bush Administration characterized the threat. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/92 "2005-10-25T01:31:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Left Hand of Dorkness, by any chance did you check out my Factcheck link earlier? They also have an article discussing the dread yellowcake. Just for balance I recommend also checking that out. I didn’t read your link earlier; my apologies. I just read it, and while they’re right on some counts, I’ll ding them on others. Specifically: > [@](#): > > Bush is quoted as saying “We found the weapons of mass destruction,” but that’s not all he said. The quote is from an interview with Polish television given May 29, 2003 – weeks after the fall of Baghdad, as Bush was starting to face questions about why no Iraqi stores of such weapons had been found. > > Reading all of what Bush said makes clear he was referring both to “weapons” and to “manufacturing facilities” and was still clinging to what intelligence officials had told him about Iraqi mobile laboratories that supposedly were used for manufacturing biological weapons. If I say, “I’ve found a bullet and a bullet-mold,” and really I’ve only found a bullet-mold (well, really I’ve only found a piece of moldy styrofoam, but I believe it’s a bullet-mold), then I’ve lied. The fact that I lied only about the bullet doesn’t mean I didn’t lie. Bush said, > [@Bush](#): > > We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them. Clearly he’s saying we found both. Factcheck is wrong to excuse this by saying the President falsely believed we’d found only the labs. > [@](#): > > The ad quotes Defense Secretary Rumsfeld as saying “We know where [the WMDs] are” on March 30, 2003 – at a time when US forces were within 65 miles of Baghdad. > > This quote doesn’t look much different even in full context. Rumsfeld was reacting to a question about why no weapons of mass destruction had been found, and he said US and coalition forces didn’t yet control the areas where weapons “were dispersed.” Excusing this by saying that he may have been mistaken is inappropriate. He said, “We know,” not “We think we know.” If he didn’t know, then he shouldn’t have said that. Obviously, we can never know anything with perfect certainty; I don’t want to get into that philosophical debate. By this point, however, the Administration had already been wrong on several counts, I believe (e.g., the UN report); for them to pretend certainty on this aspect of their intelligence shows either temporary insanity or, more likely, a false reporting of certainty. The rest of the article seems fine to me. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/93 "2005-10-25T01:35:09Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I guess I’m just able to criticize Democrats without feeling like I’m endorsing Republicans by doing so. This thread is about Democrats, that’s all. I’m a big believer in original intent. If this thread were about Republicans, I’d be happy to trash them. Ah yes…and now we have a shining example of why the doctrine of “original intent” is so problematic. 😉 I see statements like this in the OP: > [@Lynwood Slim](#): > > I am one of those who believes that the Bush Admin. did not lie, that is, purposely tell what it knew to another to persuade of this untruth, with the added moral dimension – to bring harm upon the one being persuaded. > > I believe the Bush administration honestly believed that Saddam had chemical weapons, and had nuclear and biological programs. The adminstration may have been mistaken, but I don’t believe they lied or purposively misled. This causes me to interpret the OP’s original intent quite differently. Sure, he phrased the title in terms of what Democrats said. However, his larger purpose was clearly to provide cover for the idea that the Administration did not lie or even purposely mislead. And, this is why I (and presumably others) have taken the discussion in the direction that we have. In my view, this is more in keeping with the larger original intent expressed by the OP even if it is not in line with his narrow request! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/94 "2005-10-25T01:35:49Z")
I was just curious. Did you happen to look over their thoughts on the whole Yellow Cake thing? Its in a separate article in the archive. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/95 "2005-10-25T01:36:33Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Wow–this is a fairly restrictive definition of a lie. It’s also a little garbled, so let me see if I understand it. For you, a lie must: > > 1. Consist of an untruth > 2. Purposely told to someone else > 3. With the intention of bringing harm to the person to whom the lie is told. > > I agree with the first two criteria, but the third one is totally new to me. If I falsely say, “Yes, your Honor, I saw Mr. Smith stab the defendant!” I am trying to bring harm to Mr. Smith, not to the judge; as such, it doesn’t meet your third criterion. Would you seriously argue that this isn’t a lie? > > Would you argue that the concept of a white lie is incoherent–that saying, “My, this cake is delicious!” is not a lie, since nobody is harmed by it?\* > > I think that the [thread that **Jshore** linked to](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=340054) sets forth a strong argument that: > > 1. Bush told a falsehood > 2. With the intention of deceiving the audience > 3. And which ended up causing harm to people (albeit not necessarily to his audience). > > And I think that easily satisfies any reasonable criteria for a lie. > > Even if we go with your definition, the fact that his audience is now seeing their children be killed overseas and their national debt skyrocket to pay for the war probably satisfies your “harm” criterion. I just don’t think that’s a reasonable one. > > Daniel > > - Anxiously awaiting the pedants who will argue that the baker will end up harming other people by not hearing good criticism of his baking skills and foisting inedible cakes on future victims: please please please correct me on this point! Daniel: I apologize if my description of a lie, from a moral perspective was garbled. You rephrased it well. The last part of the three part criterion for lying is to place certain kinds of lying well within the realm of moral wrongs. Generally speaking (see Kant on this), no moral wrong is committed unless harm is intended. If I say that your tie looks good, and I know it to untrue, but I intend you no harm, then while I might have uttered an untruth, it not does count as a moral wrong. If you are person is fashion challenged (as I am), and you are going to a dressy party, and are wearing a comical tie, and as me, and I tell you it is fine, knowing that your humiliation is likely, then that is a moral wrong, and morally speaking, a lie. In normal conversation, most folks don’t pay much attention to the distinctions between making mistakes, relating inaccurate information, telling innocuous untruths, and lying. Those subjected to training in moral philosophy, as I was, tend to use perhaps unnecessary precision with these words. As one trained in moral philosophy, I am trying to understand with greater precision the moral wrongs of which Bush is being accused. What I have gleaned from this board is that many hold that he knew one state of affairs to be true, but related a different state of affairs to be true (uttered untruths). These untruths causes others (Congress) to give him license to lead our country to war, which brought great harm to others. It appears to me that the motivations ascribed to him for such lying run the gamut from utterly base (oil) to perhaps noble (export democracy). In my attempt to analyze Bush’s behavior morally, I, like many here, must ask whether he was mistaken, and perhaps tailored what he knew to make it more compelling, or actual lied, e.g., fabricated a putative state of affairs. Getting to his motivations would be another thread, hopefully populated with more light than heat. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/96 "2005-10-25T01:42:06Z")
First, **xtisme** , I’ve not read the yellowcake article yet. I’ll try to get to it later in the week. > [@Lynwood Slim](#): > > Daniel: I apologize if my description of a lie, from a moral perspective was garbled. You rephrased it well. > > The last part of the three part criterion for lying is to place certain kinds of lying well within the realm of moral wrongs. Generally speaking (see Kant on this), no moral wrong is committed unless harm is intended. See, I agree with this (and not because of any special training in philosophy, but because I thought lots about this stuff in the sixth grade). However, note this subtle difference. You agreed that I rephrased your argument well, with the third step, “With the intention of bringing harm to the person to whom the lie is told.” Now, however you’re saying that it’s a moral wrong if “harm is intended.” The audience, in your revision, is not part of the picture. I think nobody would dispute that Bush intended to cause harm to people in the commission of the Gulf war. That may not have been his primary motive, but he didn’t intend to prosecute the war with cupcakes and daisies. He intended to bomb people, burn people, shoot people–what was the phrase? “Shock and awe” people by blowing them all to shit. The intention of causing harm is firmly established. So the remaining questions are whether he said falsehoods, and whether he said them with the intent of deceiving people. The posts and threads I linked you to make the case that, with the UN Document, he said a falsehood with the intent of deceiving people. The factcheck article, in disputing six lies, leaves two of them still looking an awful lot like lies; and one of them is straight from W’s mouth. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/97 "2005-10-25T01:52:42Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] Ah yes…and now we have a shining example of why the doctrine of “original intent” is so problematic. 😉 I see statements like this in the OP: This causes me to interpret the OP’s original intent quite differently. Sure, he phrased the title in terms of what Democrats said. However, his larger purpose was clearly to provide cover for the idea that the Administration did not lie or even purposely mislead. And, this is why I (and presumably others) have taken the discussion in the direction that we have. In my view, this is more in keeping with the larger original intent expressed by the OP even if it is not in line with his narrow request![/QUOTE JShore: As you will see in my opening thread, I predicted that my request for information would invite a polemic. I have no desire to polemicize here, though I certainly cannot prevent others. The media are full of claims that Bush lied. I find that I must refer to sources, such as this board, beyond the mainstream media to find a contrary viewpoint, buttressed by evidence. Allow me to be clear. I am involved in a debate with others (not on this board), who claim that Bush is lying. Lying, as a moral wrong, has a rather precise definition. In my trying to analyze whether Bush lied, or was simply incompetent, it is important to know what others thought to be the truth at the time. My hypothesis is that Bush was incompetent, but did not lie. I believe he tailored the evidence, but did not fabricate it. I am willling to be argued out of this position by dispassionate evidence. If members of Congress also “knew” what he “knew”, then this is prima facie evidence that he did not lie, but rather was mistaken. Prima facie, but not compelling, because as has been stated on this thread, Bush could either have shaped what Congress knew, or he knew things that they didn’t. The latter two would have to be proved. The hated of Bush is palpable here. It is thicket that must be navigatied to enjoy the considerable erudition that now and again appears amongst the inflamed rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/98 "2005-10-25T02:01:42Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > First, **xtisme** , I’ve not read the yellowcake article yet. I’ll try to get to it later in the week. > See, I agree with this (and not because of any special training in philosophy, but because I thought lots about this stuff in the sixth grade). However, note this subtle difference. You agreed that I rephrased your argument well, with the third step, “With the intention of bringing harm to the person to whom the lie is told.” Now, however you’re saying that it’s a moral wrong if “harm is intended.” The audience, in your revision, is not part of the picture. > > I think nobody would dispute that Bush intended to cause harm to people in the commission of the Gulf war. That may not have been his primary motive, but he didn’t intend to prosecute the war with cupcakes and daisies. He intended to bomb people, burn people, shoot people–what was the phrase? “Shock and awe” people by blowing them all to shit. The intention of causing harm is firmly established. > > So the remaining questions are whether he said falsehoods, and whether he said them with the intent of deceiving people. The posts and threads I linked you to make the case that, with the UN Document, he said a falsehood with the intent of deceiving people. The factcheck article, in disputing six lies, leaves two of them still looking an awful lot like lies; and one of them is straight from W’s mouth. > > Daniel Daniel: as usual, a face to face or voice to voice discussion would prevent the minor misunderstandings you raise. To give an example: FDR wanted us in the war in Europe to save Britain. His lend lease program was essentially a deception. FDR did not “lie” to benefit himself personally or harm the American people (though some Germans and Italians were discomfited by the newly obtained armaments of the British). I discussed lying as it usually discussed in the interpersonal realm, and then applied it to the political realm, without the necessary intermediate steps. I shall look at the links you provided me with great interest. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/99 "2005-10-25T02:51:24Z")
> [@Lynwood Slim](#): > > My hypothesis is that Bush was incompetent, but did not lie. I believe he tailored the evidence, but did not fabricate it. The part I underlined is what I believe is called a “quibble.” Or it is a distinction without a difference. You think that GW selectively cited only part of the evidence, or claimed a certainty that didn’t exist, for the purpose of convincing someone to agree to his favored course of action. How is that different from fabricating evidence for the same purpose? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569/100 "2005-10-25T03:38:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You want a cite that Clinton said that Saddam had WMD? > > I’ve done that in other threads. [Here is it again for you to disregard.](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html) Here’s where we trigger a whole slew of “that doesn’t count! BUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED” in increasingly shrill voices. > And I have never seen a convinced Bush-hater change his mind about anything. Go figure. > Nope, it is entirely true, especially in your case. And you are by no means alone on the SDMB. > > Look, you need to understand something. You know all that crap y’all pitch about lockstep, mindless drones supporting the President, and “drink the Kool-aid”, and getting your thinking entirely from blogs? That’s you folks, except from the other side of the aisle. A good big chunk of you people are the very definition of knee-jerk liberal. > > Obviously **ElvisL1ves** is one of the worst examples, but it is a darn close race for second place. > > It’s a faith issue, like creationism. And like creationists, you get a whole bunch of selective perception and double standards, and always in the direction of confirming what you assumed in the first place. > > It’s just that I’ve learned over the years when to tell which subjects trigger the group think. That’s when all the hard-boiled skeptics start taking cites from the National fucking Enquirer as gospel, and seriously discussing how Bush is planning to cancel the elections and rule as a dictator, and invading Canada and assassinating people who leak stuff, and all that kind of thing. I mean, come on. > > Some of the discussion hereabouts is informed and enlightening. The rest - isn’t. And the volume of the argument has no effect on the credibility of the poster. > > It’s a shame so many of you are lockstep liberals, but you are. That’s just how it is. It ain’t under my control, so it ain’t my fault. You don’t like it? > > Not my problem. I paid my $7.98, and I get some of my money’s worth by giggiling condescendingly at the some of the bullshit laid on so lavishly by a good number of the Usual Suspects. Deal with it. > > Regards, > Shodan **Shodan** , if you want to launch a diatribe against your political opponents, then open said diatriabe up in the **Pit** , don’t deliberately answer a question with a false response in order to set up a strawman effigy that you can burn in the middle of the thread. The rest of you: control your knees when someone so blatantly taps them. If someone posts completely off-topic, then just ignore it or report it. Otherwise, you are simply feeding each others’ ill will and no serious discussion is possible. Yeeesh! I step out of the Forum for one day and when I come back I feel like I have to put on my recess monitor uniform and go break up the fights among the little kids. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-leading-democrats-also-thought-saddam-had-wmd-programs/327569.md?page=6)