When will the Democrats cut off this WMD argument once and for all?

[alcuno]

I remember posting this very question last June and have yet to hear the Democrats cut this argument off at the knees. Instead of saying, "There are no WMD's in Iraq" or "Why haven't we found them?" why aren't they saying that it's too late?

When will the candidates start saying that they fully expect for WMD's to be found in Iraq but that whatever is found at this point was obviously of no threat to the United States of America? Instead of lowering expectations about there being no WMD's they should be raising expectations that there are. And in doing so making the argument that something found in a hole in Iraq was not a threat to us.

If they keep saying that they are not there and the administration comes up with them, the Dems are setting themselves up for failure. Why aren't they just declaring, "game over?" It's just like the Saddam argument. Instead of harping about him not having been found, why didn't someone make the argument that he was irrelevant; that his imminent capture was likely but he wasn't the reason that we went in there. Even administration officials (Rummy) said that at one point.

[kainah]

1. good point, alcuno

And if they weren't a threat, bushco lied to take us into war. And to do so, they lied to Congress -- and that is a felony.

[Old and In the Way]

2. I agree.

Watching Bush continue to lie about this using a nebulus "programs" as tinshield for justification is total BS. This administration lied to get this war on. apparently, the new reason is Saddam was an "evil dictator". But that's not what they cooked evidence to justify this.

All the Dems should agree that this administration has lied about this issue and agree not tofight each other on this issue.

I won't believe any findings now, anyway.

[Another Bill C.]

3. One way or the other

The administration will come up with WMD in Iraq. They've probably already flown them in and are waiting for maximum political advantage in "discovering" them.

It's like their current strategy of predicting a protraction of insurgent hostilities. If the hostilities drop off, no one will be unhappy. If hostilities pick up, they can say, "We predicted this." They can't lose.

[arewethereyet]

4. bed was made by some and been lain in too long to fake it

some were more clever about their tack on this than others.

[tlcandie]

5. Watching the interview with Diane Sawyer tonight I saw for the first

time that they don't care whether there were or were not WMDs or any of the other things they pointed to. They feel justified that they did they right thing for the American people and the country so it doesn't matter what was or wasn't said. The end justifies the means.

IOW, lying is okay as long as the end result is favorable.

[karabekian]

6. ~

"lying is okay as long as the end result is favorable."
thats what FDR once said

[MrPrax]

40. Yeah...he also invoked 911

Again attempting to link Iraq/Saddam to NYC...

But you know when it comes down to it, the WMD issue might be 'all in a day for US foreign policy scams'...but internationally it won't go away given the high-priority 'pecker stretching' BushCo did with the issue.

They insisted on their existence, they viciously attacked the character and credibility of anyone and everyone that even 'doubted' them or even asked for some solid proof...
Bush burned a lot of good will over it...no way the 'majors' are going to drop the issue without Bush sucking it up like a man and admitting to the ruse...
I mean it is one thing to fraud Americans over boats in Vietnam; t is quite another thing to perpetrate the level of fraud and abuse they did for 8 straight months....

[mmonk]

7. It gives cover

to the pro-war dems, especially those running for office. However, they need to give up their personal aspirations for the good of this country and allow discourse over this issue and the whole premise of this war.

[karabekian]

8. I really think that

We need to move on from the WMD and Iraq war if we want any chance of winning. You cannot win by just being against things and I think that America as a whole is pretty much come to the conclusion that Iraq was worth it. While I don't necessarily agree, I think it is a loser to focus our whole campaign and platform on this. there are so many domestic issues to rail on bush for and really highlight our differences. It feels good to attack bush but I think we need to ask ourselves if that is the right strategy to victory next Nov,. I don't think so.

[mmonk]

9. You may be right

but my principles won't give way. This new America I have trouble getting comfortable with.

[salinen]

10. "If you conspire with terrorists,

you are a terrorist" When Rummy handed WMD's to Saddam he (Rummy) should have been tried as a terrorists. Without those precursors, Saddam would not have been able to gas Persians or Curds. Let's call it as it happened, the american government gassed the Curds.

[alcuno]

14. I agree 100%

That's why I think this "scavenger hunt" for WMD's needs to be cut off at the pass.

[dpibel]

24. You are so right

I think we need to just get over the 2000 election, too, while we're at it.

[Don Claybrook]

32. You think we need to move past the murder of tens of thousands

of innocent people?

George W. Bush needs to spend the rest of his life in prison on the charge of mass murder, and you want me to just move along, get over it?

Should I just get over the raping of the Constitution in the year 2000 also? Should I move past Bush's acquiescence to the deaths of 3000 people in 2001?

But I'm nothing if not eccuminical. I'll be FOR something instead. I'm FOR the indictment, trial, conviction, and imprisonment of several members of the thug administration.

[NavajoRug]

11. This is an excellent point . . .

The Democrats cannot hammer on points like this, because if the U.S. suddenly finds WMDs in Iraq we look like utter fools.

Look what happened to the Dean campaign when Saddam Hussein was found -- just a few days earlier, he had been criticizing the White House for not finding Saddam Hussein.

What bothered the hell out of me is that the Dean campaign didn't have the foresight to have a carefully-prepared, well-scripted plan in place MONTHS AGO just in case Saddam was captured. And another plan in place in case Saddam was killed. And another plan in place in case Saddam showed up nice and healthy in another Muslim country. Etc., etc.

[alcuno]

13. That's why they need to cut off the debate.

I don't agree that if the US finds WMD's now, 8 months after "Mission Accomplished," that we would look like fools. But I concede that others would make that argument.

Finding WMD's now just means finding WMD's; it does not mean proving a threat to the US. This is why the Democrats should cut off the WMD argument and make it irrelevant.

[NavajoRug]

16. I also think we should get off the WMD argument . . .

. . . because it isn't one that we as Democrats can claim any moral high ground on.

Ironically, I believe it was exactly five years ago tonight that Bill Clinton publicly announced Operation Desert Fox in Iraq, specifically citing Saddam Hussein's "nuclear, chemical, and biological" weapons capability.

[alcuno]

18. Of course we can claim the moral high ground.

Bill Clinton, for all his flaws, Iraq being one, never unilaterally invaded and occupied a sovereign nation. I don't see the comparison that you are making.

Of course Saddam had WMD's. It's the damn 21st Century, just about everyone's got them or working on getting them.

[NavajoRug]

19. I'm talking about the moral high ground . . .

. . . on the issue of WMDs in particular, not the moral high ground on warfare in Iraq in general.

I predicted months ago that no WMDs would ever be found. I have no problem with that, except that it puts me in a difficult position when it comes to justifying Desert Fox in 1998.

[alcuno]

21. I don't understand what you are sying.

What is the moral high ground on the issue of WMD's?

[NavajoRug]

23. I'm talking about taking the position . . .

. . . that waging war in Iraq was unjust because even the reasons that were publicly given by the White House for going to war were a FRAUD.

[Don Claybrook]

33. I think WE should advocate for truth

Pure, unadultered truth. And whoever it takes down, it takes down. Put everyone under oath, both parties, both administrations, let's see where it comes out. Let's just open the whole thing wide and let consequences be consequences.

What would be wrong with that?

Would you be comfortable with that?

[NavajoRug]

35. I would definitely be comfortable with that . . .

That is why when it comes to politics I make a point of defending ideas, not people. Because it's the ideas that count, and people can often disappoint you.

[Don Claybrook]

37. Absolutely right

I like Clinton, but I'd be willing to risk him in a truth-session with GWB any day of the week. So long as the truth comes out, I don't care who has to fall on his sword for it (although I have VERY strong suspicions about who is complicit and who isn't).

[ComerPerro]

12. great point

After all, if it takes us this fucking long to get to them with unrestricted access to the country, then how was Iraq an imminent threat?
And, moreover, why on earth did they demonize Hans Blix for not being able to accomplish in a month something that is taking them well over a year?

[Bombtrack]

15. because that's a completely empty argument

just because something hasn't been found doesn't mean it isn't a threat, whether you support war or not.

London never found Jack the Ripper, was he not a threat at that time?

Iraq is the size of California. If I wanted to hide a few 50 gallon drums of bioweapons in a toolshed in Bakersfield and the feds found out, unless I really slipped up or someone ratted me out, the feds probably wouldn't find it

[Don Claybrook]

34. Well, they said they knew where these weapons were.

They lied.
They murdered tens of thousands of people based on their lies.
They were never concerned about WMD.
They need to be held responsible.

[TankLV]

38. Ummm - not a couple 50 gallon drums...

TONS of WMD

THOUSANDS of WMD

ABLE TO REACH THE US WITHIN 45 MINUTES WMD.

But OK, let's give bunkerboy ANOTHER pass for LIES and LIES THAT KILLED THOUSANDS of innocents.

Not me!

But you've got your repuke talking points down pat. Good job.

Thanx.

[tlcandie]

17. So, I guess this means we need to move on onto something that

all people can understand and that is their families and their pocket book.

We need to show where all the bases throughout the world are and show that this admin will be taking us to Syria, Iran and North Korea along with other undetermined countries if we continue with this regime.

Iraq notwithstanding...it is what it is atm. We have to show the people their intention to move forward which is what they mean when they say, "the war on terrorism will be a long, hard war that will mean a lot of sacrifices."

If the American people are willing to RISK the chance of another COLD War with wars unending, etc. then they need this cabal. If they want to find another solution then they need someone else in office.

That is all they can handle or want to know about war IMO as to the average joe. Then we can discuss financial aspects of how it hits them personally which leads to economics at home, jobs, education, etc.

Just my 2 cents... :shrug:

[incapsulated]

20. You make a good point, two more...

I'm still afriad they are going to plant wmd and "find" them just before the election.

Also, most polls show that, rather remarkably, most Americans don't care whether they find any wmd, that getting rid of Saddam was jusification enough for the war. *sigh* Hammering this point over and over may not be worth it, even if they are never found.

[alcuno]

22. If you're afraid they are going to plant them , all the more reason

to make them irrelevant. We'll see what the American people say about getting rid of Saddam as justification if things continue on in Iraq as they have. I think people are still waiting for the WMD's.

[incapsulated]

27. Well..

I was pretty much agreeing with your concern.

As for the polls, the only ones I could find are old (June) and confusing. One one hand, people seem to think WMD's were found but I'll bet that one has changed, on the other the majority seems to be in favor of congressional hearings on the matter.

Either way, I'm still nervous about them being planted. I was rather amazed that they haven't at this point. But it could be an "October Surprise".

[DjTj]

26. I don't even care about WMD's anymore...

...as soon as the troops landed in Iraq, this all became a moot point, but we still argued about it then. When the Baghdad fell, it was even more of a moot point, but we still argued about it then. When we captured Saddam, WMD's were beyond a moot point, but we're still hung up on it now.

But what is that you say? "If we don't find WMD's, then Bush lied! He lied! And the American people will see that and they'll scream 'Liar! Liar!' Nobody will vote for him then!" ... Does anybody really see that happenning? The reality is no, and in fact, even if we never find WMD's it doesn't even mean Bush was a liar.

Think about it: If you ask me where the milk is, and I tell you it's in the refrigerator, but when you go down to the kitchen there's no milk in the refrigerator because my brother had drank it without my knowing 5 minutes earlier, did I lie to you? Sure, what I said was not true, but that is a mistake of fact and not fraud; the difference in a court of law and the court of public opinion is very different. People who are misinformed are not generally called liars.

Not finding WMD's establishes nothing. If we want to hold Bush culpable for something, we'll have to prove that he knew there were no WMD's, but he told Congress and the American people that there were. That's a lie, and at this point, so many months out, finding or not finding WMD's probably won't affect that case one way or the other.

So stop waiting for WMD's and listen to what Bill Nelson is saying. We should be asking questions about the fall of 2001, not about what is or isn't in Iraq right now.

[alcuno]

29. I agree that finding them establishes nothing at this point.

However, we don't have to prove that they knew there were no WMD's because their own words have damned them. Remember Rummy saying, "We know where the WMD's are. They are around Tikrit and Baghdad." I like the milk analogy even though Cheney was talking of a reconstituted nuclear program.

[DjTj]

30. but...

...they can keep claiming that they were moved or dismantled or whatever.

If we make any progress on this, it must be shown that when Rummy said he knew where the WMD's were, he really didn't know where the WMD's were. This will require some sort of memo or something being leaked and still has very little to do with whether or not we ever find WMD's.

[Don Claybrook]

36. Did your brother's milk-drinking result in the deaths of thousands?

I didn't think so.

[TankLV]

39. Boy, you sure got your repuke talking points down, again!

Another one!

Thanx for the "help".

I'll keep hammering bunkerboy on his LIES that are currently KILLING THOUSANDS!

Nice try.

Won't wash.

But thanx for playing!

[DjTj]

42. I just don't think you'll convince too many moderates...

...hammering away at bunkerboy like that.

Tell them that Bush should've made an actual effort to reach out to the UN so that we wouldn't be stuck with this $87 billion bill without help from the French and Germans.

Tell them that before they went in, they should've had a plan for Iraqi reconstruction that didn't involve American kids dying every day.

Tell them that his motivations for the war are very suspect given the millions that Halliburton is making off of the war.

Tell them that Bush's arrogant attitude has more people around the world harboring anti-American sentiments now than any time since the end of the Cold War.

Don't go around screaming, "Bush lied! Where's the WMD?!" People will dismiss you as a crazy Bush-hating liberal and you'll never be able to get their vote.

[TankLV]

43. So bunkerboy DIDN'T LIE? There ARE WMD?!

Boy - I must've missed all that!

So, despite ALL the OVERWHELMING evidence that bunkerboy LIED, and CONTINUES TO LIE, we should all just shut up because the SHEEPLE may not like it?!

It's hard to admit you're wrong, but it doesn't mean you should stop pointing it out!

But the TRUTH sucks these days if you're in denile!

Thanks for the losing advise. I'll pass.

Dems better start ATTACKING, and attacking HARD! or we're doomed to lose AGAIN!

[DjTj]

44. Well if you want to hammer Bush...

...use Bill Nelson's words to back you up.

...cite the soon-to-be-released 9/11 report.

There's more than enough things to hammer Bush on. We should attack away and attack with all we've got.

I'm just saying that we should attack with our strongest arguments, and we're not going to get anywhere if all we've got is, "We haven't found WMD's so Bush lied!"

[Blue_Roses]

25. great point!

n/t

[kainah]

28. The British MPs have it right

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121703F.shtml

snip...

In a letter to Mr Blair, Graham Allen, a former government whip, warned: "With Saddam a captive, the world will now expect these weapons to be found. They represent his only bargaining counter with the Allies and he can expect only a short time to use it. If Saddam does not within the next month or two offer some evidence which leads to a discovery of WMD, the world will draw the reasonable inference that he never had any. If that happens, I hope that the Government will accept this conclusion too."

snip...

[ecstatic]

31. I think they did for the most part

The media chose to only focus on certain sound bites that questioned where Bin Laden /Hussein / WMDs were.

[tlb]

41. Dec. 16. The fifth anniversary of Operation Desert Fox.

Iraqi WMDs and programs and related targets that were such an immediate threat, the impeachment vote just had to wait.



WASHINGTON -- After launching hundreds of cruise missiles and dropping untold tons of bombs from allied aircraft, the Operation Desert Fox assault against Iraqi military targets ended Dec. 19.

President Clinton, following the advice of his national security team, told the nation "the operation is now complete, in accordance with our 70-hour plan."

Based on what he called "preliminary results," the president said four nights of bombing sites suspected for production of weapons of mass destruction and other military and security targets had met allied goals.

"Our objectives in this military action," Clinton said, "were clear: to degrade Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program and related delivery systems, as well as his capacity to attack his neighbors."

The president added, "We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure."

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen agreed.

"We gave our forces a very difficult job to execute, and they performed it with great speed and also with great skill," he said. "There were no U.S. or British casualties, but as we all know, our armed forces put themselves in harm's way every single day. All Americans should be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who executed Operation Desert Fox."

Assessing the overall campaign, the secretary said, "We've degraded Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We've diminished his ability to wage war against his neighbors."

Cohen said U.S. forces attacked about 100 targets over four nights, adding, "We concentrated on military targets, and we worked very hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. Our goal was to weaken Iraq's military power, not to hurt Iraq's people."

To that end, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Henry H. Shelton said Air Force combat forces shined throughout the operation. According to his tally, American and British war planes flew more than 650 strike and strike-support sorties. Air Force B-52s launched more than 90 cruise missiles, and U.S. ships launched more than 325 Tomahawk cruise missiles against almost 100 targets.

In addition, Desert Fox saw the combat debut of the B-1B Lancer. During their sorties aircrews dropped 500-pound conventional bombs onto Iraqi targets.