Did Bush know Saddam had no WMDs?

[clk]

Alot of people have claimed that Bush went to war because he sincerely believed that Iraq had WMDs. I've been thinking about this lately, and now I think that he knew they didn't have WMDs around late February 2003. He figured out that Saddam didn't have WMDs after weapons inspectors failed to find anything. In fact, the inspectors claimed that the US was sending them on "wild goose chases"!

Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."


Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."


Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml

But did Bush give a damn that his intelligence was wrong? Nope! He had a hard on to get Saddam, and dammit he was going to get him! That's why he declared war in mid-March. If had he allowed the weapons inspectors to stay longer, then it would have been revealed that Saddam had no WMDs. Bush cannot claim that he didn't let the inspectors stay because Saddam was an imminent threat, because recently Bush said that he never claimed that Saddam was an immediate threat! Ah-ha! The truth has unraveled.

 

[patnray]

I'm not so sure. As we so often see in these forums, self-delusion can be a powerful thing. Bush was convinced Iraq had WMD. Therefore, that the UN failed to find them only "proved" that Sadam was hiding them, or that the UN was incompetent, or both. Bush "knew" they were there, and no amount of evidence (or lack of evidence) was going to change his mind. Much like the homeopaths who declare that no amount of evidence from "close minded" skeptics will convince them that homeopathy doesn't work.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Nice retort patnray
When people become self convinced of their own position , the room for critical thought is short circuited.

 

[clk]

I'm not so sure. As we so often see in these forums, self-delusion can be a powerful thing. Bush was convinced Iraq had WMD. Therefore, that the UN failed to find them only "proved" that Sadam was hiding them, or that the UN was incompetent, or both. Bush "knew" they were there, and no amount of evidence (or lack of evidence) was going to change his mind. Much like the homeopaths who declare that no amount of evidence from "close minded" skeptics will convince them that homeopathy doesn't work.

I dunno...I don't think even Bush was at the point of being that delusional. I mean, his whole administration seems to have been like that. I don't think they were delusional, I think they knew the truth. They might have believed Saddam had WMDs before the inspectors went in, but I'm sure they knew he didn't have WMDs after the inspectors searched the sites and found nothing. That's why they pulled the inspectors out and rushed to war.

edit to add:
Also, O'Neill and Clarke have shown that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq from the very beginning. He just needed a reason, any reason at all. So I don't think he was really self delusional about WMDs. The WMD reason was just the one that scared Americans the most, so that worked for him the best.

 

[Segnosaur]

In fact, the inspectors claimed that the US was sending them on "wild goose chases"!

You are right in that the inspectors were complaining about the quality of information provided by the U.S. However, Hans Blix was also complaining about the quality of material provided by the Iraqis.

If had he allowed the weapons inspectors to stay longer, then it would have been revealed that Saddam had no WMDs.

Remember one of the important rules of being a skeptic: You can't prove a negative. All of the tests of psychics, dowsers, astrology, etc. don't prove these paranormal things don't exist, just as a failure of the inspectors to find WMD didn't necessarily prove they didn't exist. The only way to prove Iraq didn't have WMD would be to examine everything, and that was something that Iraq wasn't willing to do.

Now, another poster linked Bush's belief in WMD with someone having a belief in homeopathy. However, this comparison doesn't work for several reasons, perhaps the greatest of which is that there is no physical law that woudl explain why homeopathy would work, while there is no such law explaining why Iraq could not have had WMD.

Remember, prior to the war, there were many reasons to believe that Iraq had WMD even though the inspectors failed to find any:
- Iraq wasn't complying with requirements. If Iraq had nothing to hide, it would have been in Saddam's best interest to comply, rather than to hide the fact he had nothing and risk getting deposed. The fact that he didn't comply is a little curious
- Weapons inspectors didn't necessarily have a good track record in finding stuff. Remember, in the 1990s, the inspectors were only able to find a small amount of WMD; it took a defector to actually show them where the bulk of the material was
- Iraq had known supplies of WMD in the late 1990s (prior to the inspectors being removed or kicked out). Iraq wasn't claiming they never existed, but that they had been destroyed. Yet they failed to provide evidence that they had actually gone through with their destruction. (Look at it this way, if I give you a dollar, and later I ask for it back and you say "I don't have it" and you won't show me what you bought with it, then its not that unreasonable to assume that you still have the dollar somewhere.)


As for why there was a 'rush' to war, while it could mean that Bush thought the inspectors were going to say "no WMD", there were other reasons:
- Stationing troops in the area indefinitely would have been a great strain, both on troop moral and expenses (yes, the war and reconstruction is also expensive, but a long wait+war would be more expensive than a short wait+war.
- The invasion happened in the spring/summer. The climate of the area is not condusive to fighting in the summer months. (Remember, they were already having problems with sand storms at the time of the invasion.) If they didn't act when they did, they may have had to wait until the fall

Does that mean Bush thought Saddam had WMD? Frankly, I don't know. I do believe that it was it was reasonable (not proven, but not totally out to lunch) to believe that he had kept some small stockpiles, or infrastructure to produce more at a later date. Whether Bush actually believed that is unknown, although 'assuming' he knew, based on the evidence you provided, is sketchy at best.

 

[Silicon]

I agree with Steg.

If Bush entered the war KNOWINGLY misleading the American public about WMD's, he sure as shooting would have had some plausible fakes planted, or at least a plan to put some plausible fakes in.

I cannot imagine he foresaw the current egg on his face.

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Did Bush know Saddam had no WMDs?

Remember one of the important rules of being a skeptic: You can't prove a negative.

Sorry, I should've worded that more clearly. What I mean was: if the inspectors checked all of the sites the US wanted, and the search turned up nothing, then the intelligence of the US would have been in question. The intelligence was saying that Saddam had WMDs, and if the intelligence is questionable, then the WMD argument can fall apart easily.

Remember, prior to the war, there were many reasons to believe that Iraq had WMD even though the inspectors failed to find any:
- Iraq wasn't complying with requirements. If Iraq had nothing to hide, it would have been in Saddam's best interest to comply, rather than to hide the fact he had nothing and risk getting deposed. The fact that he didn't comply is a little curious

I thought he did comply? Weren't the inspectors allowed to go anywhere they wanted?

- Weapons inspectors didn't necessarily have a good track record in finding stuff. Remember, in the 1990s, the inspectors were only able to find a small amount of WMD; it took a defector to actually show them where the bulk of the material was

But back then, didn't Saddam use to play games with the inspectors? I thought they were often blocked access to sites, etc. In 2003, however, I was under the impression that they were allowed to go anywhere they wanted. But I could be wrong.

As for why there was a 'rush' to war, while it could mean that Bush thought the inspectors were going to say "no WMD", there were other reasons:
- Stationing troops in the area indefinitely would have been a great strain, both on troop moral and expenses (yes, the war and reconstruction is also expensive, but a long wait+war would be more expensive than a short wait+war.
- The invasion happened in the spring/summer. The climate of the area is not condusive to fighting in the summer months. (Remember, they were already having problems with sand storms at the time of the invasion.) If they didn't act when they did, they may have had to wait until the fall

But the WMDs were the basis for the war. If there was reasonable doubt that Saddam didn't have them, then the inspection process should have been carried out fully. Then, if the inspectors really don't find anything, then just pull the troops out and don't go to war.

Does that mean Bush thought Saddam had WMD? Frankly, I don't know. I do believe that it was it was reasonable (not proven, but not totally out to lunch) to believe that he had kept some small stockpiles, or infrastructure to produce more at a later date. Whether Bush actually believed that is unknown, although 'assuming' he knew, based on the evidence you provided, is sketchy at best.

Even if Saddam had a small amount of WMDs, I don't think he would've used them to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US. I'm pretty sure Bush knew this. Even the CIA said that Saddam was more likely to use them against us as a defense against invasion. Saddam knew that the US could throw him out in a heartbeat...he wasn't dumb enough to mess with us.

Your argument was well thought out and gave me points to consider.

 

[fishbob]

the room for critical thought is short circuited

Now that is one mixed metaphor.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Did Bush know Saddam had no WMDs?

Sorry, I should've worded that more clearly. What I mean was: if the inspectors checked all of the sites the US wanted, and the search turned up nothing, then the intelligence of the US would have been in question. The intelligence was saying that Saddam had WMDs, and if the intelligence is questionable, then the WMD argument can fall apart easily.

I'm sure there were problems with intelligence. But, even a 'perfect' intelligence system cannot possibly know everything. (Prior to the war, I didn't bother considering the U.S. intelligence sources; I felt there were enough indications from non-intelligence sources.

I thought he did comply? Weren't the inspectors allowed to go anywhere they wanted?

But back then, didn't Saddam use to play games with the inspectors? I thought they were often blocked access to sites, etc. In 2003, however, I was under the impression that they were allowed to go anywhere they wanted. But I could be wrong.

Saddam was still playing games. Although the inspectors probably did have more access than they did in the 1990s, there were still problems:
- Iraq was supposed to provide a complete accounting prior to the inspection period, but their document missed some material. They had to provide followups
- The inspectors did find some items that were technically banned (a 'drone' airplane that was slightly larger than allowed, empty chem warheads, etc.) While those themselves are not really WMD, they were still not allowed to have them
- Iraq was still resisting some elements of the inspections, such as air survailiance

Of course, all this seems so long ago, I've forgotten some of the other things they were doing.

But the WMDs were the basis for the war. If there was reasonable doubt that Saddam didn't have them, then the inspection process should have been carried out fully. Then, if the inspectors really don't find anything, then just pull the troops out and don't go to war.

Unfortunatley the 'inspections' could technically go on forever, especially if Iraq continually resisted American efforts.

I do think Bush made an extreme blunder in emphasizing WMD. Personally, I thought Saddam may have had some, but it was only one of several reasons I supported the war (human rights, terrorism, etc.) No one reason would have been important enough, but it was a combination of factors. But then, I'm sure other pro-invasion people had their own opinions. (I supported the war in spite of what bush said, not because of it.)

Even if Saddam had a small amount of WMDs, I don't think he would've used them to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US.

Depends on what you mean by 'pre-emptive strike'. I wouldn't be worried about Iraqi nuclear weapons bombing New York and Washington, or massive chem attacks on California. But, there were other things to be concerned with, even if Iraq only had minor stockpiles left:
- He could have provided small amounts of bioweapons to terrorists. He wouldn't have needed much, and it could have been kept hidden. And while the loss of life would have probably been small, it would have caused a lot of panic. (look at how people reacted to the anthrax mail scare a few years ago.)
- He could have used some chem or bio weapons on Israel. (While Israel is a separate country, they are an allie of the U.S.)
- Lastly he could have used weapons like that on his own people

I was pretty sure he didn't have nuclear weapons, and any stock piles of chem weapons would have been fairly small even if he did have them. The bioweapons were the ones that concerned me the most.

 

[Luke T.]

12 years of containment is a long time. And expensive. Sooner or later, we would have had to give it up. And since Saddam had repeatedly violated over a dozen U.N. resolutions and the terms of the cease fire, it was unacceptable to let him get away with it and just walk away.

Long before President Bush, other people and other nations were saying Hussein had WMDs. Bush didn't invent them or delude himself into believing they were there.

It is strange that Bush is currently getting his ass kicked in the 9/11 hearings for ignoring warnings about terrorism, and people are kicking his ass for NOT ignoring the warnings about WMDs in Iraq!

If Hussein had WMDs, and Bush was told he was, for us to walk away from containment meant that as far as we knew, Hussein could continue, or restart, his buildup and would inevitably go on the offensive again.

I don't see that Bush had much choice, really, and up to the start of the war, neither did anyone else, except Robert Byrd, France, Germany, and Russia. And France, Germany and Russia had deep financial reasons for opposing the war, not humanitarian ones.

 

[Luke T.]

I am thinking of Clarke's recent testimony in which he said the intelligence community "failed you." If we can buy off on that for 9/11, why is it so hard to buy off on Iraq, too?

edited to add: Imagine you are in your first days as President and you are told:

A) Saddam Hussein has an active nuclear, biological and chemical weapons program, and you recall Saddam has used chemical weapons in the past, invaded Kuwait, lobbed missiles at Israel during the Gulf War, and torched Kuwait on his way out the door just out of spite. One mean bastard. Working on nukes.

B) Osama Bin Laden is out there plotting against us. He has been behind an attack on a U.S. Naval ship and a couple embassies, and the bombing of the WTC in 1993.

Which one would you be most concerned with?

 

[Theodore Kurita]

12 years of containment is a long time. And expensive. Sooner or later, we would have had to give it up. And since Saddam had repeatedly violated over a dozen U.N. resolutions and the terms of the cease fire, it was unacceptable to let him get away with it and just walk away.

Long before President Bush, other people and other nations were saying Hussein had WMDs. Bush didn't invent them or delude himself into believing they were there.

It is strange that Bush is currently getting his ass kicked in the 9/11 hearings for ignoring warnings about terrorism, and people are kicking his ass for NOT ignoring the warnings about WMDs in Iraq!

If Hussein had WMDs, and Bush was told he was, for us to walk away from containment meant that as far as we knew, Hussein could continue, or restart, his buildup and would inevitably go on the offensive again.

I don't see that Bush had much choice, really, and up to the start of the war, neither did anyone else, except Robert Byrd, France, Germany, and Russia. And France, Germany and Russia had deep financial reasons for opposing the war, not humanitarian ones.

Then again LukeT, you have to consider the fact that Saddam WAS CONTAINED.

What were the odds of a nuclear strike coming from Baghdad?

0% chance because there were no Nuclear weapons in Iraq.

The data that was used to justify the war in Iraq was old evidence, that had long since been discarded.

That and Collen Powell just made sh** up about some of those photos.


Note to self, fiind transcript of 60 minutes interview with a former CIA officer

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Now that is one mixed metaphor.

HAHAHA caught with my pants down...try it with the Pommes frits.

"If Bush entered the war KNOWINGLY misleading the American public about WMD's, he sure as shooting would have had some plausible fakes planted, or at least a plan to put some plausible fakes in."


I cannot believe that Bush regardless of what one thinks of the person would engage in that type of behavior. The danger is that he is an ideologically, religiously driven individual. That doesn't mean he wouldn't engage in behavior that was bending the law , especially viewed thru the filter of his beliefs.

 

[Luke T.]

Then again LukeT, you have to consider the fact that Saddam WAS CONTAINED.

TK, there were constant clashes with Iraq over the no-fly zones for 12 years. And just how long do you think we would have paid the expense of containing Hussein?

What were the odds of a nuclear strike coming from Baghdad?

0% chance because there were no Nuclear weapons in Iraq.

20/20 hindsight is a great thing, isn't it?

The data that was used to justify the war in Iraq was old evidence, that had long since been discarded.

Well, you are going to have to prove that one, sport. Because a lot of people besides Bush had not discarded it, including the U.N.

 

[Silicon]

It is strange that Bush is currently getting his ass kicked in the 9/11 hearings for ignoring warnings about terrorism, and people are kicking his ass for NOT ignoring the warnings about WMDs in Iraq!

That depends on the quality of the warnings. According to Clarke, he was wrong on both of them, going easy on Al Queda and trying to pin 9/11 on Iraq as early as 9/12.

The message isn't "ignore all warnings" or "Ignore no warnings". It's "go where the evidence leads you." As Davy Crockett used to say on TV: "Be sure you're right, then go ahead."

Bush seems to have skipped the first part of that, or at least was sure he was right before he checked his facts, according to clarke.

I'm not saying Clarke is right or wrong. What I'm saying is, THIS is what he's getting his ass kicked for. Not for being too soft or too hard. It's for allegedly making his mind up that iraq was the focus regardless of the threat and the lessons of 9/11.

 

[Luke T.]

That depends on the quality of the warnings. According to Clarke, he was wrong on both of them, going easy on Al Queda and trying to pin 9/11 on Iraq as early as 9/12.

"Going easy on Al Queda?" Are you kidding?

edited to add: Maybe it is your grammar. Did you mean going easy on Al Queda prior to 9/11, and trying to pin 9/11 on Iraq after 9/11?

Also, "trying to pin 9/11 on Iraq" is an interesting choice of words. How about "was concerned 9/11 might be payback for the Gulf War."

If I was Bush, I sure as hell would have considered that a possibility on 9/11.

edited again to add: If Bush had not looked at all the possibilities of who attacked us, would that have been a "rush to judgement"?
Wouldn't he have been neglectful in NOT considering that Iraq might have been behind 9/11?

 

[Silicon]

"Going easy on Al Queda?" Are you kidding?

Before september 11? According to Clarke, not kidding at all.






According to clarke, they were going after Saddam on the 12th. Bush wanted him to come up with an Iraq connection so they could go after Saddam.

"Go back over everything, everything," Bush said, according to Clarke's account. "See if Saddam did this."

"But Mr. President, al-Qaida did this," Clarke replied.

"I know, I know, but ... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

Reminded that the CIA, FBI and White House had sought and found no such link before, Clarke said, Bush spoke "testily." As he left the room, Bush said a third time, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."


Clarke accuses Rumsfeld of plotting to bomb Iraq one day after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, despite any evidence of Iraqi involvement.


"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq... And we all said... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."

 

[Bjorn]

Shouldn't the question be changed from 'Did Bush know Saddam had no WMDs' to 'Did Bush know Saddam had WMDs?

I mean, that's what we were told, wasn't it? We know this, we know that. We saw those beautiful satelite pictures and were explained how they proved this and that.

Obviously, since the weapons weren't there (and I was always puzzled how we could see them from space but not from the ground), someone said they 'knew' something that they most probably 'thought', or 'had some evidence for'.

I know is a pretty clear statement, and should be saved for the occations when we really do. And yes, I know politicians lie - but this one was taking us to war.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Shouldn't the question be changed from 'Did Bush know Saddam had no WMDs' to 'Did Bush know Saddam had WMDs?

I mean, that's what we were told, wasn't it? We know this, we know that. We saw those beautiful satelite pictures and were explained how they proved this and that.

Yes, Sir, You are correct. The situation was that there was suspicion based on the "disappeared" weapons since the first gulf war. Which were destroyed . The scenario of the current administration was that those weapons and programs survived, contrary to the view of the experts on the ground. The political point of view was proved by erroneous data and inflated estimates of the political position , which was not shared by the intelligence community. The fact was the direction of the Bush administration was an analog of finding commies in every crevasse motivated by Tailgunner Joe in the '50s.

 

[Crossbow]

One of the many things that really bothers me about the WMDs is that both Bush and Blair did know that their intelligence was wrong about where the Iraqi WMDs were at so one should expect that they should have at least thought more about the issue of Iraq having WMDs to begin with.

What I mean is that Hans Blix has come forward and said that the Americans and British did tell his team where to find WMDs, but when Blix actually went there, no WMDs were found. Further, it has been recently revealed that the British had bugged Blix and thus knew his private conversations which were essentially the same as his public declarations, but notwithstanding, both the Bush and Blair continued to promote their assurances that Iraq had WMDs.

Ugh!