The American left changes gears in Iraq

WMD stockpiles in Iraq were never the core issue

Published on July 11, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

The American left who has opposed action in Iraq (and in many cases Afghanistan before that) has increasingly latched on to the myth that "Bush lied". The theory is that Bush "sold" intervention in Iraq based on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And since we've found no massively stockpiles (we have found some WMDs just not in large quantities) we therefore (they argue) went into Iraq based on a false premise. This is total nonsense.

Besides the usual facts that everyone thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs (Clinton, Bush, Kerry, etc.) that wasn't why we went into Iraq. It was one of the reasons. But it wasn't the primary reason. The biggest reason was related to WMDs in the sense that we were concerned about Saddam as a long term threat, especially once sanctions got lifted (as France and Russia were pushing for).

The arrogance of the American left on this issue is immense. It is almost contemptuous of the intelligence of the average American. Even today, most Americans support US action in Iraq. The recent problems in Iraq have caused that support to dip slightly under 50% in some polls but that has nothing to do with WMD stockpiles, it has to do with frustration with US policies in the occupation. But if the liberal premise that we went into Iraq for the WMD stockpiles were true, then American support for having gone in there would be at 10% with only the hard core "neo-cons" still in favor of it. But it's not, the WMD stockpile issue was never a central premise for going in.

It bears saying it again: If WMD stockpiles were the primary reason for going into Iraq, then the fact that we haven't found any would therefore lead one to conclude that nearly all Americans should believe we made a mistake going in there in the first place. But that isn't the case. Therefore, other reasons must have taken precedence for their support.

Comments (Page 4)

vincible

on Jul 13, 2004

what happens when someone rebuilding Iraq finds an underground bunker with hundreds of tons of anthrax

BakerStreet, when, if ever, will we have waited long enough to be sure that Iraq had no WMD? We've interviewed just about all of Iraq's top scientists, and military, and political officials. We've offered rewards. We've sifted through reams of documentation. What will it take?

And speaking of revisionism... if I'd asked you, before the war, how long after taking control of Iraq would it take before we had some vague idea of Iraq's true WMD capabilities, would you have guessed "years?" I very much doubt it.

bakerstreet

on Jul 13, 2004

There is far more evidence at this time to support the claim that Iraq didn't have significant WMD stockpiles than to support the idea that it did.

Given the fact that the weapons inspectors themselves had numerous misgivings about WMDs that weren't accounted for, I'd say your assumption is pretty weak.I'd suggest a basic philosophy course. You can't prove something doesn't exist. You can believe, or assume, but you can't prove anything of the kind.

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

Revisionism better describes people that like to present Hussein's regime as a happy, comfortable place.

Great, but what's the point? Hussein's Iraq was not a happy place at all. That's no reason to invade. If it was, we'd be all over the place by now.

Hussein was using anti-aircraft equipment that utilized Chinese-installed fiber optics purchased through an initiative made by the Clinton administration... but he couldn't arm himself?

If his military was truly so formidably armed by Clinton initiatives, why did we roll over them so easilly? We didn't forbid them an army. At any rate, the Bush administration was quite adament in 2000 that Saddam was not significantly rearming and that his military was not rebuilt to any significance.

The fact remains, though, that Kerry and other "official" critics had the same information Bush had and voted in support of the war.

So... Kerry knew everything regarding the situation, yet according to this administration their own counter-terrorism chief was "out of the loop" on these issues. Interesting decision for them to make.

bakerstreet

on Jul 13, 2004

Vincible: I'm not waiting for any of it. I never once thought the invasion of Iraq was about WMDs, and I never once used it as an excuse when I argued for the war, or when I wondered why Clinton was tolerating Hussein's behavior.

My point is, you guys won't care if it is ever found, because it really isn't a concern. If it is every found, you'll not even note your mistake. It is a semantic argument during election season posed for political benefit.

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

It doesn't matter if you can or cannot prove whether something exists. The burden of proof in this situation rests on the administration, and they have not fulfilled that burden by proving without a doubt that Iraq had WMD and in such quantity as to pose a threat. I do not have to prove that there were no WMD, you have to prove that there were. I didn't go to war on the premise that Iraq didn't have WMD.

David St Hubbins

on Jul 13, 2004

Revisionism better describes people that like to present Hussein's regime as a happy, comfortable place

I've never seen anyone here or anywhere make the above claim, so why even mention it? It's a strawman argument, and why we end up arguing so much.

I must confess that I get the same feeling arguing with right-wingers that you claim to be getting arguing with left-wingers.

I get that feeling when engaging in discussion with the same characters...and I'm a right winger if anything. Imagine how much we'd argue if I were socialist. But then again, aren't we all socialist? Anyhoo, we've seen the UN speeches, the State of Union and British dossier, it's there for all to see that the stated reasons for going into Iraq had nothing to do with regime change or humaitarian aid, but rather that Iraq was threatening imminent attack, had the intent to atttack, and the means to attack.

All three points are debatable, Blair and Bush have been backpeddling all week, with Blair conceding that proof of WMD may never be found and Bush defending the war as just, in spite of a Congressional report slamming CIA intelligence and the Bush Administration's proclivity to take the most dubious of information in the most negative possible connotation in order to spin their way toward justifying a war on Iraq.

"The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq — that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons — were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday. " Link

bakerstreet

on Jul 13, 2004

The counter-terrorism chief wasn't required to vote on the invasion. Kerry and the rest were, and they had the same information Bush did. Now, instead of blaming the information and the Clinton administration for making it impossible to glean accurately, they use it as a political tool.

bakerstreet

on Jul 13, 2004

No, no, no, we have had numerous conversations here on JU where people characterized pre-war Iraq as a much better place than post-war Iraq. Micheal Moore contrasts the two very heavily to make that point in his movie.

On this thread, you'll say it wasn't. On another when someone says Bush did a good job in post-war Iraq, you'll talk about how much worse things are there. Like I said, you'll say whatever you need to when you want to drive a point home.

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

Nobody voted on the invasion. Kerry and the others voted on a resolution to support the president provided that he go to the UN and ehxaust all diplomatic avenues before taking action. It's widely known now that Kerry traded his vote for the resolution for the addition of the phrasing requiring diplomatic action. The contention is, of course, that Bush didn't exhaust the diplomatic avenues, and as such their votes were not supportive of what action he took.

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

There's a big difference between saying that pre-war Iraq was a nice place and saying that Iraq now is not better off than it was before, BakerStreet.

David St Hubbins

on Jul 13, 2004

There's a big difference between saying that pre-war Iraq was a nice place and saying that Iraq now is not better off than it was before, BakerStreet.

I think he thinks a whopper like this is more of an accepted literary device than what it is: deceptive rhetoric that rapidly deteriorates civilized debate. BakerStreet, I've already posted in my blog that Iraq is probably better off today, but it seems you don't want to read that part. So it's a strawman argument.

Argue with what I really am saying:

"The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq — that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons — were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday" Link

bakerstreet

on Jul 13, 2004

"BakerStreet, I've already posted in my blog that Iraq is probably better off today, but it seems you don't want to read that part. So it's a strawman argument. "

David St. Hubbins, you probably think anything anyone says is refering to your opinions or writings. Wasn't there a Carly Simonsong about that? ...

Argue with what I really am saying:

I'm not argueing with that, I'm argueing with who you keep blaming for it in a shallow, political way... I find it homorous that the same committee with the same information now wants to blame Bush when they came to the same conclustions he did.

Well, it is election year, though, isn't it?

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

Eswiv, the reason "only" a plurality of Americans are still glad we went in rather than a super majority is because, like me, they are frustrated with the crappy post-war. Those polls usually are part of articles in which they ask why people are unhappy and they generally feel because of the bungling of the occupation.

Look, guys, this isn't that complicated. I said this elsewhere so I'll say it again:

If I tell my son that he needs to get into the car because we're going to the candy store but instead I take him to the dentist, he's going to be ticked. That's how people react if the reason they thought we did something was not the reason.

If I thought we went to Iraq for WMD stockpiles and there weren't any I'd be ticked off. It wouldn't be a 49% plurality still supporting it. It would be like a 5% plurality with only those die hard "neocons" still supporting it. But roughly half the population is STILL glad we went in despite the fact that there doesn't seem to be WMD stockpiles? Why? Because their support wasn't based on WMD stockpiles.

What the hell does Vietnam have to do with Iraq btw? More americans supported the war against Spain. So what? This is purely an issue of why we went into Iraq in the first place.

It's not like any of you who think we shoudln't have gone would somehow be saying "Yea, if we have found a warehouse of mustard gas I would take it all back and be glad we went in." You'd STILL be against it. you would have just found a different excuse.

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

Kerry and the others voted on a resolution to support the president provided that he go to the UN and ehxaust all diplomatic avenues before taking action

No no no. This is exactly the type of revisionism Bakerstreet speaks of. The congressional resolution authorized force. There was NO UN provision in there.

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

There was NO UN provision in there.

Except for this one.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions.'

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!