Weapons of mass . . . something

Forums: Politics, Iraq, Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Let's recap:

Here's what Bush said in the 2003 State of the Union Address:
It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed.

So, in other words, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And in his May 1, 2003 speech declaring an end to "major hostilities," Bush reiterated his pledge to find those weapons:
We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

But when the weapons stubbornly refused to be found, the rhetoric shifted. Now, it's weapons of mass destruction programs that were the real problem, as Bush pointed out in remarks at the Oct. 28, 2003 press conference:
David Kay's report said that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of 1441, which would have been casus belli. In other words, he had a weapons program, he's disguised a weapons program, he had ambitions.

So it wasn't weapons, it wasn't even necessarily a program, but it was an ambition to have a program. And then we got this from the 2004 State of the Union address:
Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

So we've gone from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction programs" to, finally, "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." And, in the latest iteration of this trope, Bush now says:
Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them.

See, it wasn't even a "weapons-related program activity," it was a "capability" to produce weapons. And they weren't "weapons of mass destruction," they were "weapons of mass murder." A rather convenient substitution, since the weapons that David Kay found weren't really capable of much destruction, mass or otherwise. They were, however, capable of murder. Heck, even Saddam's pistol, which now hangs as a trophy in the Bush White House, was capable of that.

So, to paraphrase a question I posed before: if you supported the war when it was about "weapons of mass destruction," would you have supported it if it was about the "capability" to produce "weapons of mass murder?"

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 9,819 • Replies: 156

No top replies

How about gangs of hoods to break their fingers?

0 Replies

Bump.

Great stuff, Joe. But none of that matters because we got Saddam! Laughing

0 Replies

Joe are you implying that the administration is "flip flopping" on their reasons for war in order to justify their actions which they failed to prove BEFORE we went to war?

You can't be saying that Bush is "flip flopping" on the reasons he gave before the war?

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

Joe are you implying that the administration is "flip flopping" on their reasons for war in order to justify their actions which they failed to prove BEFORE we went to war?

You can't be saying that Bush is "flip flopping" on the reasons he gave before the war?

Bush flip-flopping? Nooooo! That can't possibly be the case.

And I'm sure that the UN vote that he promised would take place, no matter what the whip count is, has been held up by purely technical reasons.

0 Replies

That's it? Resignation over France and Russia's inability to overcome their greed and the saving of American jobs? I am glad he changed his position both times.

Oh, and they forgot the second flip of losing the Tariffs after a period of time.

0 Replies

I would only note that in order to flip-flop, one must have a coherent position in the first place--otherwise, there is no contrasting position to take in order to have flopped the flip.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I would only note that in order to flip-flop, one must have a coherent position in the first place--otherwise, there is no contrasting position to take in order to have flopped the flip.

Excellent observation.

0 Replies

WMD are, or before very long will be, within the grasp of various dictators and terrorist groups. When an American city is destroyed by a nuke, or a man made plague is initiated in America, and millions lie dead and wounded this will seem a bit less humorous.

Oh, but I forget, the odds of this happening are infinitessimal.

0 Replies

Once Syria realizes that holding onto Saddam's WMD's is a bad idea and start dispersing them to various groups, that may come to fruition.

0 Replies

LOL, you libs are so desperate to falsely paint Bush as being the kind of flip flop waffle that kerry is, it has made you sillier than usual!

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

WMD are, or before very long will be, within the grasp of various dictators and terrorist groups. When an American city is destroyed by a nuke, or a man made plague is initiated in America, and millions lie dead and wounded this will seem a bit less humorous.

Oh, but I forget, the odds of this happening are infinitessimal.

Now where would those WMD come from? Pakistan the country we KNOW sold intel to make them? Saudi Arabia? N. Korea? again we KNOW they sold the means to make them.

Once again the Bush loyalist try to infer that if Canada were to attack us our only recourse would be to attack Mexico!

I'm loving this stance that NO WMD means they exist. That allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the information coming out saying HE DIDN'T HAVE WMD, and the fact that WE CAN'T FIND THEM means they exist in Iraq.

Meanwhile in Al Qaeda camps ALLLLLLLLLLLLL OVER THE WORLD they are readying for another attack with weapons they bought from out allies Pakistan, from N. Korea, from Libya, even from going into russia and scavanging for the pluthera of nuclear parts left over from the Cold War.

Yet we aren't supposed to pay attention to that....Nooooooooooooo we are supposed to take who's word for it? The WMD don't exist but they do because ? See this is where you lose me.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
WMD are, or before very long will be, within the grasp of various dictators and terrorist groups. When an American city is destroyed by a nuke, or a man made plague is initiated in America, and millions lie dead and wounded this will seem a bit less humorous.

Oh, but I forget, the odds of this happening are infinitessimal.

Now where would those WMD come from? Pakistan the country we KNOW sold intel to make them? Saudi Arabia? N. Korea? again we KNOW they sold the means to make them.

Once again the Bush loyalist try to infer that if Canada were to attack us our only recourse would be to attack Mexico!

I'm loving this stance that NO WMD means they exist. That allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the information coming out saying HE DIDN'T HAVE WMD, and the fact that WE CAN'T FIND THEM means they exist in Iraq.

Meanwhile in Al Qaeda camps ALLLLLLLLLLLLL OVER THE WORLD they are readying for another attack with weapons they bought from out allies Pakistan, from N. Korea, from Libya, even from going into russia and scavanging for the pluthera of nuclear parts left over from the Cold War.

Yet we aren't supposed to pay attention to that....Nooooooooooooo we are supposed to take who's word for it? The WMD don't exist but they do because ? See this is where you lose me.

I guess I did lose you. I made a generic statement to the effect that there is a real likelihood that dictators and terrorists will obtain WMD in the future and use them against the US and/or allies. I made no reference at all to Iraq.

WMD are becoming more accessible. Dictators and terrorists want them. Some would like to use them against us. Sooner or later someone will succeed in smuggling one into the country and setting it off. One single use of one could kill as many as a million people.

Get it now?

0 Replies

I'd go with 100 billion Brandon

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Get it now?

And that relates how to the topic of this thread? To Bush's changing justifications of the war on Iraq?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I'd go with 100 billion Brandon

A nuclear bomb in a major city, or a virulent plague could easily kill a million people. Do you believe otherwise?

0 Replies

No, I just think that if you are pulling numbers out of the air of possibility you might as well go with 100 billion, which is also possible (if not probable, then again a million isn't probable either).

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

And that relates how to the topic of this thread? To Bush's changing justifications of the war on Iraq?

It relates like this. The development and use of WMD in the near future is a terrible danger. Dictators and terrorists want the weapons, they have a realistic chance of obtaining them, that chance increases every day, and once they possess them, they will be in a position to kill civilians in the West by the million. One single use of one WMD would wreak destruction on a massive scale. In other words, we are in terrible danger, and the danger is increasing as the accessibility of the weapons grows.

At the time of the invasion, Bush made the decision that the odds that Hussein still had his weapons or his weapons programs, or would start development again once the spotlight left him, were substantial enough that action had to be taken to protect us from a crippling attack somewhere down the road. Or Hussein could even have refrained from using them and dominated the Middle East by the threat of their use.

Since civilization is in such great danger, I agree totally with Bush for erring on the side of caution.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

No, I just think that if you are pulling numbers out of the air of possibility you might as well go with 100 billion, which is also possible (if not probable, then again a million isn't probable either).

Okay, then, a moderate sized fission weapon is detonated in the heart of Los Angeles. My estimate is that a million could easily die. You say no. very well. Estimate the death toll and consequences please.

And, please don't buy time by asking me what I mean by "moderate." I can tie this down if you insist, but I think you know what I mean.

0 Replies

To really err on the side of caution we might as well just kill everyone.

0 Replies

Weapons of mass . . . something

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know