So if WMD weren’t the reason why we had this war, why did the war dogs cite it as the reason?

Guess that pretty much blows Coulter’s argument right out of the water, doesn’t it?

I thought so.

The question is not so much whether Iraq actually possessed WMD’s, but rather whether the United States had reason to believe that it did. Apparently the Clinton administration thought so in 1998. Moreover, Saddam Hussein, by throwing up obstacle after obstacle to UN inspectors, and refusing to provide any evidence that his regime had disposed of weapons that everyone knew it once had, acted very much like someone who did indeed have such weapons. If he didn’t actually have them, he seemed, for whatever reason, to want us to believe that he did. In other words, it’s an issue of probable cause.

I’m no great fan of Coulter’s, but she’s absolutely right in saying that even those who opposed the war believed that Iraq had WMD’s; their argument was that this was at least irrelevant, at most an argument against intervention.

To return to the probable cause analogy, suppose that a police officer stops a motorist because he suspects he is under the influence of alcohol. Upon investigation he finds that the driver is not drunk, but there’s a dead boy in the back seat. Does the officer let the driver go, on the assumption that the presence of the body had nothing to do with his original decision to stop him? That, in a nutshell, seems to be the latest (and, one suspects, last) arrow in the quiver of the anti-war agitators.

Actually, the case would have been thrown out.

To return to the probable cause analogy, suppose that a police officer stops a motorist because he suspects he is under the influence of alcohol. Upon investigation he finds that the driver is not drunk, but there’s a dead boy in the back seat. Does the officer let the driver go, on the assumption that the presence of the body had nothing to do with his original decision to stop him? That, in a nutshell, seems to be the latest (and, one suspects, last) arrow in the quiver of the anti-war agitators.

Does nobody remember the OTHER reasons cited for the toppling of Hussein’s regime? I distinctly remember the liberals screaming that the Bush administration couldn’t make up it’s mind why--there was links to terrorism, WMD, human rights violation....No?

kevin, dont be a dumbass. you all know that wmd was the primary reason cited. they didnt find any and now you all are whining because they are on the hot seat. case closed.

that post was by me by the way

This is meant for the blog. Can someone post it there?

Hi, everyone. When the outcry started against the United States for not finding the alleged WMD in Iraq, I was sure either the international community or I were crazy, because I seemed to remember the UN being sure of the existence of nuclear weapons in Iraq before the U. S.’s action. If they aren’t sure now, they were in 1991. Those sycophantic, cowardly, and let’s not forget sniveling, idiots! Read this piece. It’s succint, brilliant, and it proves that the international community, as expressed in the UN, is crazy.

https://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/334.htm

nobody is saying there weren’t wmd in iraq in 91 but this is 2003 you dolt.

Nathan, Eric, the text of the law backs up John, lets look to the joint resolution authorizing force in Iraq, https://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm. There are 23 whereas clauses, in overlapping phrasing: ten discuss intl/regional peace and violations of the cease fire; eight discuss WMD - past use, failure of inspections, DEVELOPMENT, belief in current capability (1), possibility of sharing WMD (1); seven discuss violations of UN resolutions; six discuss international terror; three discuss democracy/human rights abuses in Iraq; and three discuss US security interests.
The resolution is a rather exhaustive summary of the multiple arguments for war, and while one third of the justifications related to WMD, only two of the eight mentions of WMD concerned expected current capability. The whole resolution finds that Saddam was too much of a threat to peace - the reason cited more often than any other.

Yep, just keep searching for loopholes. that’ll get you guys out of this mess for sure!

What Mr. Martin calls "loopholes" were actually mass graves, many of which contained the corpses of women and children. But what ought one expect from a person who thinks "the economy sucks balls, and so do you" is a cogent argument?

I don’t want to get into the name calling either way. But to raise a theoretical point perhaps... It seems to me that at least in theory, the case for War in Iraq is stronger the greater the number of reasons for going into Iraq. I would liken going into Iraq to making a move in chess. If the primary reason for making a pawn move is to attack a knight, it is not foolish to think that the move should have other redeeming qualities once the knight is gone. Attacking the knight with a pawn is made a lot stronger a move if it also improves pawn structure and puts pressure on the opposition to find a counter move. In chess as in life every choice builds the foundations for future choices. I would be very disapointed if those running the country manuvered in such a way that they had to justify a move based upon a single narrow time-locked function. The drive to justify the war one way or the other, without understanding the move in its greater permeations is rather foolish. I say to hell with giving primary reasons, moves that have multiple functions and increase flexibility or constrict the flexibility of the opponent are best. Ask any grandmaster... I for one would appreciate it if more political thinkers thought like chess players.

thanks for making my point for me john moser. you guys were all whining about wmd before the war and nothing was said about mass graves. but now that you cant find wmd you start whining about mass graves. anything to justify the war, right?

oh and for the record john moser sucks balls too.

I’m curious, martin, why do you troll here? Folks here are very unlikely to get upset, respond and play the spam game with you (once they catch on).

Or is that the fun you get: Until they catch on, you get to have some fun?

since you are so fascinated with trolls maybe your last name should be goat instead of lamb. if you dont like what i saw dont read it. i know you would prefer to have things like germany in 1939 but its a free country.