Say Anything Blog

...the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren’t found. Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem, rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others.

Maybe next time the Administration will talk less about the weapons that for sure they’re going to find and more about the capability and the will to use them when they’re laying out the case for war. Framing the issue around weapons was exactly what the Administration did and to blame that on war critics is the kind of historical revisionism we’ve come to expect from the current American leadership.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

Adamson,

You obviously were drinking from the MSM distillate of the Administration’s position.  In each and every speech and presentation by Administration Officials leading up to the AUMF, WMD were only ONE of several causes for resuming hostilities named, and usually were rather far down the list.  It was the MSM that cherry picked WMD and ran with it.

You should as well note that non-trivial amounts of mustard gass (a WMD) and new program binary agent artillery deliverable nerve gas munitions were discovered as well.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

RG...of course many reasons were offered for invading Iraq but to suggest that the alleged WMD and the threat they posed to the security of the United States wasn’t the lynchpin is highly mischievous IMO. Would the invasion have occurred without invoking the possibility of Iraqi WMD? I don’t think so.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

Mike,

Show me the speech or press release (in its entirety, vice as reported) where an official of the Bush Administration cited extant WMD’s as the primary or paramount reason for resuming hostilities.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

President Bush’s address to the nation on March 17, 2003.

The existence of Iraqi WMD and the threat they pose to the security of the United States was not the only factor he mentioned but it’s clearly the dominant theme of the address and the primary justification offered to the audience for the invasion.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

So there! Rodney!

MA,

I will concede that in this speach WMD have prinacy both of place and of emphasis.  Will you concede that it came after the AUMF was voted out by Congress (essentially after the debate was decided) and served as the last good faith warning before commencement of hostilities?

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

RG...I will. The usefulness of the clip to my point against the Barone piece is that it is speeches like this that help frame issues and that is why it is wrong to lay the framing at the feet of the critics IMO.

"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

oceans no longer protect us speech 10/07/02

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, “The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.”

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today—and we do—does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

… If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there’s a reason. We’ve experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

… After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

“He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”

Colin Powell
February 24, 2001

“Saddam does not control the northern part of the country, we are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Condi Rice
April 2001

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob