?How do we answer the WMD Question?

[kpete]

10 times a day (at least) I hear the same thing. Everyone, Clinton, the UN, the French, the Democrats & Republicans, the media all believed Saddam had WMD's.

I am so tired of hearing the same talking points. Even Jimmy Carter could not answer this question in a clear way.

Is there any way to counter this?

My weak (so far) answer is that yes, everyone thought there were weapons, but not everyone wanted war.

Can anyone help me to bring clarity to how we can argue the war without answering this troubling question?

[YDogg]

1. Um, nobody else bought into it enough to go to war?

Works for me.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Reciprocity]

2. Is there any way to counter this?

The difference is that they believe it BUT did not take our country to WAR over this. News flash Clinton is no longer our president. He did not call for a PREEMPTIVE war of choice.

[Amonester]

7. Nor did he ever forged any documents to use them for lying-eom

[Reciprocity]

21. Exactamondo!

Also there is a BIG difference between having something, and USING it.

[napi21]

3. Yes, I think there are two ways.

First, no one was sure enough to go to war over it! All the others wanted to continue with the inspectors.

Second, the others believed there were nukes BECAUSE the Shrub admin. told them they knew it was true! Remember the pictures Powell showed at the UN?

[stanwyck]

4. well, the intelligence was cherry-picked

by the Bushies. Then spoon-fed to their lapdog press, like Judy Miller. So. People read the NYT and believed the lies.
People believed our intelligence agencies...not knowing that their reports were being edited by the Bush admnistration.
And people believed media which had been reliable in the past.
Many trusted our officials/press to tell the truth.
They didn't.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Clinton knew the best way to deal with the Saddam/WMD threat was continued

inspections and flyovers.

Cheap, no lives lost, effective.

[tabasco]

6. UN inspectors were finding nothing until Bush forced them out.

Ronald Reagan gave nerve agent precursors (WMD) and other weapons to Saddam Hussein. That is the only verified WMD Hussein ever had.
Of course, Reagan also sold weapons to the Iranians, therefore providing weapons to both sides in a war. Would that make you proud to be a republican?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Nobody else started an unnecessary war, except for Bush. And it is a lie to say that "everyone" thought Hussein had WMD. That is just a talking point. Did the UN sanction the invasion? Did the French?

edit typo

[jody]

8. Any small country that uses any of the CBR weapons we refer to as WMD

that used them against the U.S. or one of our close allies can expect immediate and devastating counter attacks probably destroying the attacker's infrastructure and leaving the rogue leader no where to hide in the world.

The damage done to the U.S. would be tragic but we would survive such an attack because it would consist of a few weapons. The attacking country would be destroyed.

[blm]

9. It was the weapons inspectors' mission to find the WMDs. No Democratic

president, senator or congressman would have invaded Iraq after weapons inspections were proving that military action was not needed as per the IWR.

[Mz Pip]

10. Maybe Saddam did have weapons

but we had inspectors in there that we working to uncover them and destroy them. That in and of itself kept Saddam under the world microscope.

Lots of countries have WMDs but we don't turn them into kitty litter just because they do. Saddam had lost 2 wars in 10 years; he was contained and carefully observed. He wasn't going anywhere.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[LSK]

11. there are several responses

1. The Downing Street Minutes prove that they were out to fool everyone with BULLSHIT intelligence.

2. Clinton bombed Saddam in 1998 and you can make the argument that this disarmed Saddam back then and what Bush did was completely unneccessary.

3. You can simply ask the fools to prove that the UN and the French said that Saddam had WMD

4. You can read the IWR and point out that Saddam was in full cooperation with inspectors right before the war. The IWR clearly states that Bush can invade ONLY if Iraq poses a threat or Saddam does not cooperate. Neither condition was met.

5. David Kay and the Dueffler group found no WMD.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

[greenman3610]

12. Just say, "If only we'd listened to the French"

just say this:


"The French got it right, the Germans got it right,
Hans Blix got it right, Mohammed El Bharadei
got it right, Scott Ritter got it right, 30 plus
US senators got it right, Knight Ridder Newspapers
got it right, Susan Sarandon got it right,
20 million demonstrators around the planet
got it right...
and all of them were shouted down as
weak, appeasing pussies. Well,
we were right - so fuck you,
you lazy ass sunshine patriot fuck."

[grannylib]

19. Perfect! And we could add, yes, we knew he had WMD, WE GAVE THEM

TO HIM when RayGun, the great reThuglican God, was president. Rummy practically hand-delivered them. Back in the day when we were SUPPORTING the Taliban, that is...'cos they were anti-Commie...

[SlavesandBulldozers]

13. try hanging out with different people, it'll be better for you.

if they are still defending this clusterfuck, they are beyond redemption.

[jsamuel]

14. This is how:

From how I responded to Lou tonight:

You were "factually" wrong tonight Mr. Dobbs. You said everyone knew or everyone all over the world thought that Saddam had WMD's.

If that were true, why did our "grand coalition" only have around 5 nations?

Exactly. Because everyone in the world DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE WMD's. But they said they didn't have proof. The Bush Admin said they did. In the state of the union address, Bush said that Saddam tried to obtain uranium from Niger.

I suggest you take a hint from the 51% of Americans who believe that the Admin intentionally misled us into war and stop repeating talking points from the WH as facts.

[kpete]

15. Thanks Jsamuel

I appreciate your answer, especially:

The world DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE WMD's. But they said they didn't have proof. The Bush Admin said they did.

but, please do not think that I ever believed the talking points. Me and my family never bought into the bullshit. It is just that SO MANY did. I am trying to arm myself with answers because it comes up everyday.

[sandnsea]

31. imminent threat

In March 2003, after the inspectors had been in Iraq, there was no proof of WMD that would create an imminent threat. The inspections should have continued, which is what the entire world and most Democrats wanted.

So simple. We should have been saying it for the last 2 1/2 years.

[seabeyond]

16. after listening to lou dobbs it is NOT about WMD's. that wasnt

gettng bush into war. a lot of all of us assumed they had wmds and the american people were not prepared to go to war for that. why they needed yellow cake adn niger, creating plamegate. the mushroom cloud, aluminum tubes, drones are what took us to war. NOT wmd's. whether we found that or not didnt have much to do with it. saddam working on getting mass quanties to terrorists, or nuclear bombs is what got the support of senate and american people

was NOT wmds

[evermind]

17. AFAIK the French & UN did NOT believe in Saddam's nukes.

Take them away, and "Clinton, the Democrats & Republicans" is not "everyone", by a long chalk.

Lots of people around the world were extremely sceptical of the US / UK case for war - a clear majority I'd say. Those who took it seriously were mainly US/UK politicians and tame media outlets, plus those suckered in by them.

(Edit: that's my recollection, anyhow)

[seabeyond]

23. not nukes. but they did shrug the wmd's and figured they had them

but they absolutely bolted at the nukes and aluminum tubes yes. and that is how bushco convinced support of war. NOT wmds

[evermind]

39. Nope - there was no widespread belief in WMD, France, UN, or anywhere

much outside US / UK and a few client states (though US-friendly media outlets in various countries may have helped confuse the issue.)

It was widely predicted that no WMD would be found.

The UN inspection team had informed the thinking part of the world that it was unlikely any WMD would be found - one reason for the timing of the war was that Bush had to rush in before the inspectors had finished completely and could definitively claim that there were no WMD.

If you say "everyone thought Iraq had WMD" you are perpetrating a revisionist mythh. It simply wasn't the case.

[jbnow]

18. The WMD Iraq was thought to have

were the older chemical (and maybe biological?) ones he had before the first invasion. They all assumed there were hidden ones the earlier inspectors hadn't found before they were booted.

They also didn't have the ability to deliver them in attacks on other countries. They lose effectiveness as they age. Others didn't think he was getting close to any nuclear weapons which was the big threat bush guys scared us all with.
No one else thought he was a danger, certainly not to us!
We were watching them with our spy planes...obviously since we had all the fake pictures that Powell showed.

But the biggest part is this...our Congress and the UN all agreed inspectors should be let back in. They were let back in. Besides some minor games, they were given access to places they wanted to inspect and people they wanted to talk to. They inspected the places we said to look. They were finding nothing. They were willing to keep looking.

They left because we told them too because we wanted to start the war. Hey, we had all our ships and soldiers there and wanted to get the war over with while the weather was good.

So that is the big answer. The inspectors were there, Iraq was cooperating with them. Every country agreed with them going back in.

How crazy was that...we kicked out the inspectors looking for WMD and finding none to start the war for WMD

[demgurl]

20. Two words for you.....

"British Intelligence". That says all that needs to be said. * got up in front of the world and said British intelligence says that there are WMD's.

You need to look behind this to see why it is important. Several of our intel agents told * that they could not back up the facts that were WMD's because there simply was no proof. * could not state our intel said it because they would come out and say that was false. He went to Poodles and asked him to give the admin something they could use and they did.

IF everyone knew, why did * not quote our intel? Simple, our agents would not sell our public the lies. Two words say it all.

As far as the other stuff, Clinton knew there was none since he strategically bombed parts of Iraq that were proven to have the WMD's.

The French said the war and intel was wrong and that is why they would not fight with us in Iraq.

The UN knew it was wrong because they ad inspectors in there and the inspectors emphatically stated they were not finding anything. * drove them out before they could finish their jobs.

The media did not believe it, they are shills (like Miller) that print whatever the regime wants them to print.

The Democrats and Republicans only knew what BRITISH INTELLIGENCE was being fed to them, but some still spoke out and knew. This part is typical of the right wing. They 'leak' something to the press or sneak it in some papers somewhere and then they quote that to show they were right. They can not listen to * cherry pick what he will say and then say that Democrats and Republicans believed it. They did not believe it on their own. If they believed it is was because they were given misinformation - BRITISH INTELLIGENCE false information.

demgurl

[left is right]

22. If there hadn't been WMD

bush would have had to make them up--oh, wait he did.

[beardown]

24. The inspectors did not.

Tell them no, everyone did not. Especially those given the task of making the WMD inspections, such as the UN and US inspectors. You know, the experts who were on the ground for years and seeing it first hand. The ones that said over and over that Saddam was disarmed. The ones that said that they had virtual unrestricted access to any place they went even on unannounced inspections. The ones that said that all of the hot tips that the Pentagon was giving them were 'crap'.
Maybe more importantly, if Bush really thought that Saddam had WMD, especially the 'rebuilt nuclear facilities' then why after we invaded did Bush have our troops sent to guard the oil facilities and the oil ministry building while leaving the suspected WMD sites and the known nuclear facilities left unguarded? Bush either lied or is the most incompetent commander in chief in history.
Finally, many folks only thought that it would be a problem if Saddam's WMD attempts were left unchecked. The embargo and the inspections were checking him, without the loss of tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of US dollars.

[seabeyond]

28. saddam wasnt "cooperative" the inspectors said. they

werent finding anything, and i dont think they fully knew what to believe. i dont agree with your take. i think a lot of inspectors thought they might be getting the run around from saddam but they had confidence staying in and keeping pressure on saddam. it is said saddam either didnt know he didnt have them, or that he kept the illusion up to keep fear in the kurds and shiites and other countries that may be eyeing hime. but regardless. wasnt about wmd's. that is not what bush sold us on. bush sold us on mushroom cloud, aluminum tubes and drones.

[beardown]

38. You are correct about earlier on, but things changed.

You are correct about the earlier inspections as there were times when Saddam wasn't cooperating fully. Part of the reason was that the US got caught planting agents into inspection teams
to scout out Iraq for military intel. This was especially problematic when it came to checking out Saddam's palaces. By the way, Saddam is still the bad guy in this, but we didn't help matters by screwing around with the mission of the teams and making the mother of all paranoids even more paranoid.

But after the inspectors were re-admitted to Iraq, their reports about their access to sites, especially Saddam's palaces, started mentioning the how well things were going. So Saddam obviously disarmed and he was allowing the inspectors to have free access to even his own palaces. Enough so that the lead inspectors all came out with fairly strong statements that Iraq was disarmed.

[newyawker99]

41. Hi beardown!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[goodboy]

25. The inspectors were saying that nothing was there, and they weren't

finding anything. Bush had to attack QUICK before the sheep who were duped by their lies got wise...

[seabeyond]

29. this i believe. the closer it came to the attacks the more the inspectors

started to become more hesitant that saddam really had any. but really they all left it open to the possibility. i think it has to get out that saddam was going to turn himself in in oct, nov.....have his army cooperate

[leesa]

26. The UN did not.the UN inspectors clearly stated they felt he had destroyed

them. Your own CIA said there was no evidence to confirm it. Turn your teevee off.

[davekriss]

27. First, not everyone believed...

...not even the Bush administration. Wolfowitz already told us it was simply the theme, the rallying cry, around which they thought they could manufacture public consent for their imperial war. At that, it barely worked: 58% of the American public was against the war without UN consent and multilateral force. Remember the coalition of the willing? Not very willing.

Second, Colin Powell and Condi Rice already informed the world (in 2001 prior to PNAC's New Pearl Harbor) that Iraq presented no threat to the U.S., its allies, or the nations in the region. Hussein was defeated, and remained so, since the first Gulf War.

Third, as Scott Ritter so bravely told us, even if Hussein had small caches of WMD leftover post 1991 all would have decayed on the shelf to the point of uselessness.

Fourth, even if Hussein had WMD, that in itself does NOT represent imminent threat. He had to show an intention to use them on us. Where's the evidence for that? Imminent threat is the only moral justification for attack and there was no imminent threat, no attempt even to make such a case. It was war by innuendo, Saddam bin Laden might send balsa wood toy airplanes to spray anthrax over Kansas. Bush had 911 reasons for war, all hysterical untruths, all carefully crafted to stir the worst emotions in the American public so that they'd stand aside as Bush ruthlessly bombed mothers and children into shredded meat. Why? Just so Haliburton could build new impregnable military garrisons from which the USG could radiate future imperial power once the oil spigots truly start to shut down.

Fifth, how can anyone be stupid enough to believe ANY Republican? Iran-Contra? Supply-side economics spinning us into incredible debt? Those poor little medical students in Grenada? Noreiga in Panama? School of the Americas? Sandinistas taking over Texas and Oklahoma? Democracy in Kuwait? $70,000,000 Whitewater investigation? Impeachment of an effective President over dissembling over an adulterous blow job? More tax cuts to benefit the bottom 20%? Medicare Drug plan to enrich the who? The first Republican governor elected in Georgia in over 130 years despite trailing by 9 points on election eve? Wellstone? December 12 2000 and Ohio in 2004? Come on, do they think we're idiots? (No, they think we'll be just too shocked to do anything about it.)

[sandnsea]

30. imminent threat

Evidence of the existence of WMD that created an imminent threat. Who believed that in March 2003?

Letting them mix up 1998, the vote, and the timing of the invasion is what has caused this very difficult obstacle. If we had separated what was known before the inspectors from after the inspectors, we wouldn't be having this problem.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Saddam had better reasons to launch preemptive war than we did.

We had spearheaded sanctions against his country. We had invaded his country. We did/do have WMD and have used them. We threatened to use WMD against Iraq.

Saddam was a thug and a murderer. So are a lot of other governing bodies around the world. The USA can hardly claim clean hands after our many ventures into aggressive war, neo-colonialism, genocide, assasination, subversion, and all the other murderous acts performed under the guise of "protecting our vital interests".

[pisle]

33. Answer: "So what?"

Well, that was my answer anyway, back then. The only example of Saddam utilizing his WMD was back in the 80's when some rogue general gassed some pro-Iranian Kurds. Why didn't he gas the hell out of the Kuwaitis or the Coalition forces in the first Gulf War (when he was surely at the height of his power)?

The fact is that the Bush Administration were making such a condescending case for the WMD thing so hardcore for so long that people were afraid that they might be right --- specially post 9/11. That's why I don't blame Kerry or any of the others (too much, anyway) for giving Bush the power to use force (as a last resort), even though it's more than shameful to launch a preemptive war based on someone having WMD (hello. Korea, Isreal, Pakistan, etc.).

And we all know that the WMD Saddam used in the Iran/Iraq war was supplied by the good old U.S.A. (while we were simultaneously selling weapons to Iran). Go figure. The military industrial complex is devoid of morality. It's all business.

Anyway ... that's how I present an answer to the right-wing nut-jobs in my small town who can't get over the fact that their heroes were lying.

[newyawker99]

42. Hi pisle!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DistressedAmerican]

34. MUSHROOM CLOUD! MUSHROOM CLOUD!

None of the others hyped those suspicions way out of proportion to start a war over it.

FUCKING MUSHROOM CLOUD!!!!

on edit: Then have these asshats take a good look at what it was that lying fuck Cheney threatened us with.

[callady]

35. For the Record: John Edwards

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there’s a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don’t think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn’t believe-But you weren’t misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

(snip)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[kentuck]

36. They made the mistake of believing George Bush and Dick Cheney...

Surely no one would make up lies about sucha serious subject, they thought. But they were wrong.

[LostInAnomie]

40. I know there is a hornet's nest in my backyard...

... but that doesn't mean that the best way to deal with it is to go throw rocks at it.

There were myriad ways of toppling Saddam that didn't involve an invasion. Bush* was the only one to think it was a good idea.