Home

About

Contents

Guidelines

Glossary

Contacts

Discussion

Recent Discussion

Create New Topic

Membership

Join Now

Login

The 'Bush lied about WMD' Tango

A Socratic dialog with a fictitious anti-Bush zealot:

"Bush lied about WMD in Iraq."

What do you mean?

-- "To convince us to invade Iraq, Bush told us Iraq had WMD."

Did Iraq previously have WMD?

-- "Well. Yes. Lots of it, and a willingness to use it."

Did they destroy it all?

-- "They say they did."

"Did they lie about destroying it before and try to hide it from inspection?

-- "Yes."

Have they willingly supported ongoing inspection to verify complete destruction?

-- "No."

Before February, 2003, and the decision to remove Saddam Hussein, who believed Iraq still had WMD?

-- "The U.N. Inspector Hans Blix, almost every intelligence agency, the French, U.S. Arms Inspector David Kay, most Democrats in Congress including John Kerry and even Ted Kennedy who, despite claiming later on that Bush had deceived them had, according to David Kay, a full briefing and didn't object."

And did the U.N. give Saddam Hussein one last chance to prove a willingness to fully and completely cooperate?

-- "Yes."

What ways did he not fully and completely cooperate?

-- "He didn't provide full documentation. He advised scientists not to coperate. He kept hidden illegal missile and airplane delivery programs and much more."

While some wanted the U.N. to put in more arms inspectors, doesn't it take just one inspector like Hans Blix to determine, as Blix did, that Saddam Hussein was not being fully cooperative?

-- "Well, yes."

Since a small quantity of Sarin or an envelope of anthrax put in the wrong hands could be devastating, do you suppose that without full cooperation it would be difficult to discover where even a few gallons of the 110,000 gallons of Sarin and precursors or the potentially several tons of anthrax were hidden?

-- "Well, yes."

So, after September 11, 2001, do you suppose that we had reason to consider that we were at great risk from people who had the desire to attack us and from those who had the means to do us great harm?

-- "Well, yes."

So, since the United Nations specifically advised against "failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation" of the resolution, was the interest of the United Nations to determine that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD or was it, because of the great potential for harm, to assure full and complete cooperation to verify he had no WMD programs and no interest in restarting them?

-- "The U.N. wanted cooperation to verify no WMD programs or interest in restarting them."

Then wouldn't it have been sensible for the U.N. to follow through with enforcement of Resolution 1441 in January, 2003, and why do you suppose it didn't?

-- "It would have, but France and Russia would have vetoed it because enforcement would have risked billions of dollars in French and Russian oil investment with Saddam Hussein had they done so."

So doesn't it appear that we went to war with Iraq, not because Bush wanted to, but because the U.N. Security Council failed to follow through to insist on immediate, willing cooperation by Saddam Hussein in the manner previously shown by South Africa?

-- "Yes."

And if oil was a factor in this war, rather than Bush, wasn't it the French and the Russians, to preserve their billions in oil contracts, who were willing to keep the U.N. from doing its job?

-- "The French and the Russians did try to delay facing Saddam Hussein's stonewalling by putting in more inspectors when his lack of cooperation had already been proven."

And now that Saddam Hussein is gone, don't the Iraqis get to decide to sell it to whomever they want and get to rebuild with the profits from it?

-- "Yes."

So, tell me. Why is it that otherwise seemingly reasonable people repeat the bogus claim that "Bush lied about WMD" when it is not true and not the issue?

-- "Because we disagree with some Bush policies and don't want to see him re-elected."

Don't people who say "Bush lied about WMD!" seem to be lying liars who practice the lies they falsely accuse Bush of telling?

-- "Yes."

If they are lying -- or at least wrong in their judgment -- can you see why people might mistrust their judgment about their own candidate?

-- "Yes."

So why are anti-Bush zealots who say "Bush lied about WMD!" so self-defeating?

-- "I don't know."

You know? Neither do I.

Interesting Note: The Iraqi blogger at Healing Iraq quotes Jonathan Swift, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

Discuss

[Macro error: Can’t call the script because the name “commentIt” hasn’t been defined.] [Macro error: Can’t call the script because the name “commentIt” hasn’t been defined.]