I think I've got a decent talking point for discussing Iraq with moderates

[kiahzero]

It grants more premises than I would generally accept, but that's the idea: if you base an argument off of premises a rational person you are trying to convince would accept, all it takes is a set of valid inferences to convince them.

So, it goes something like this (changing the tone depending on the person):
" OK, so we now know that the intelligence services of the US didn't know the difference between WMDs, their asses, and a hole in the ground. So who's responsible?
You might say that Bush didn't lie his ass off to the country; you might feel that he was just mislead by the CIA, et al. You might furthermore argue that Kerry was similarly mislead.
I disagree with that assertion, but here's the deal: no one was pushing for action in Iraq nearly as much as the Bush Administration was. Even if Kerry had a sip of the tainted Kool-Aid, Bush chugged the goddamn pitcher like the fratboy that he is."

[wtmusic]

1. yes

in essence, that in matters that important caution must prevail;

that war should always be a last resort (and it wasn't);

that even if there were WMDs, 'vigilante justice' can't be deemed acceptable under any circumstances.

I've slowed a few moderates down (for a moment) with those.

[philosophy77]

2. Vigilante Justice

I agree it should be a last resort but I don't agree with your "vigilante justice" even if there were WMDs. What do you do, wait for one to be used? The "vigilante justice" following that event would make this war pale in comparison. It is US policy to respond in kind with overwhelming force if WMDs are used on our citizens or troops. I am not sure how that would be a better course of action.

[eridani]

4. The Soviets had a hundred thousand times more WMD--

--and they never used them. Why do you suppose that was?

[wtmusic]

8. Disagree 100%

Many other nations have WMD's--what do we do, wait for one to be used?

There is the problem. There was no clear danger to the US or anyone; the UN knew it, and the US knew it. With a UN mandate (without vigilante justice) a military response.

"It is US policy to respond in kind with overwhelming force if WMDs are used". Absolutely--if WMD's are used..

What you are advocating is essentially that we can murder people to ease our fears. Not acceptable under any circumstances.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. which is roughly backed up by Kerry's speech in January 2003

at Georgetown University: http://kerry.senate.gov/text/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

Personally, I'd have liked to see something in there about letting the UN inspectors finish their job - it's sort of implied, but there's nothing explicit. If someone had thought 'in good faith' that the intelligence showed Iraq had WMDs before Resolution 1441, then they ought to have paid close attention to the inspectors' not finding anything. But I think the speech shows that Kerry had already gone on record as saying the war wasn't yet justified by early 2003.

It's also notable that Hans Blix has backed Kerry for President - http://www.lastampa.it/Speciali/iraq2004/articoli/art040524.asp . Roughly "Are you following the campaign for the American presidency?"
"I have trust in the multilateralism of the democratic candidate John Kerry. I think however that all the world ought to vote on 2 November, because so much depends on that result".

[Ignoramus]

3. I think it's simpler than that

Months went by with all of the bush admin people repeating like broken robots "he must disarm", usually followed by a dumb silence from any news person. Once I heard a reporter squeak out, "well how would you know if Iraq had disarmed". Bush's reply: "We know what disarming looks like and this is not disarming", which of course satisfied the reporter...

The bush admin people said that they knew that there were WMD there. Obviously they did not know that they were there, because they have not been found. They have not since then said they were at location A but they are not there now. Nor did they at the time, direct the inspectors to a place where WMD were found.

They did not say we must invade because we have a hunch that there are WMD there. Or: we must invade because we think it is likely that there are WMD there. They said they knew there were WMD there. That was a lie, plainly and simply, and of the worst kind.

There is a pattern to the weaseling of the bush people. They latch on to some minor aspect of the argument and present an argument against it. Sadly this seems to work a lot of the time. Saying WMD were found because they found castor beans or whatever, is a Weaseley argument.

When people argue that WMD were not found, they are really arguing that the claimed knowledge of a threat of WMD, has been shown to have been a lie. Castor beans don't amount to a hill of... WMD.

[Disturbed]

5. WMDs

When David Kay, Bush Admin's man said no WMDs, the story changed to Programs of WMDs, when no proof of that, the story changed to Saddam has a hunger for WMDs. These people just don't want to tell the truth.

The real reasons for invading Iraq wouldn't have satisfied the majority of the American public?

I strongly feel that I now the real reasons.

What are your views on the real reasons?

[nyhuskyfan]

7. We were asking Iraq...

To turn over something they didn't have. It would be like if I walked up to you on the street and demanded that you turn over the Hope Diamond, or else I'll shoot you in the head. Then saying, "I know what the Hope Diamond looks like, and you're clearly not turning it over."

The UN inspectors were in and probably could have confirmed the lack of WMD, but that wasn't good enough for the Cowboy in Chief.