Blame the victim (Iraq) for bluffing is the latest White House theory

[glarius]

They are now flogging a new explanation for going to war....I've heard this latest a couple of times on TV and it's is a real dilly! According to the latest theory, Saddam got rid of his WMDs years ago and even though he said he had none, he wanted the world to think he still had them! Why, you ask?....Well....supposedly he thought this would keep the world at bay and no one would dare to attack him....So you see according to this latest theory, when he kept saying he didn't have WMDs and Dubya didn't believe him, it's Saddam's fault that he wasn't believed and therefore the war was necessary....And now Dubya wants $600 million and 6 months more to look for these nonexistent weapons....Got it?.....If it wasn't so nuts it would be laughable....:shrug:

edit--changed wording in subject line

[boxster]

1. I agree - this is such a load of crap.

We have spy satellites with resolution down to a few feet, the CIA, and the FBI, and NO ONE knew there really were no WMD?

But, wait, there's more - we've been flying missions constantly over Iraq for 12 years, we had weapons inspectors there for ages, and the international community has had people there for more than a decade.

So, we were snowballed by false claims of WMD? Yeah, right.

Yes, and Bush kept telling Saddam it was Saddam's responsibility to prove that he didn't have weapons. Hmm, how do you prove something DOESN'T exist?

This administration is so transparent. People must be incredibly ignorant and stupid to still be supporting him.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. disgustingly dispicable ...it is truly apalling...a bigger shovel bush?

[LiberalVoice]

3. Anyone that accepts that excuse should be lined up and shot!!!

Im sorry. But, anyone that would use that as an excuse for killing 7000 innocent civilians should be killed.

[Code_Name_D]

18. Leabermen beleives the new line.

I saw him echoing this argument on Faux news this monring.

[lovedems]

19. Was that disgusting or what!

He needs to just fall off the face of the earth! He was just telling the faux news fiends what they wanted to hear.

[philosophie_en_rose]

4. So Iraq was really "asking for it."

It couldn't be that the Bush administration demanded proof of the existence of nonexistent materials. It couldn't be that Bushco is a bunch of assholes who manufactured a war to make Halliburton profits. No one is that disgusting, are they?

Iraq must have led Bush on with its short skirt and flirty expression. They were asking for it. Right?

*********

The lying liars are really getting desperate, if they're using the justification of a rapist.

[glarius]

5. When one reason is shot down they come up with another

It wouldn't surprise me if they have a gang of thugs holed up in the White House whose soul job it is to come up with new excuses for the war!

[HFishbine]

6. Update: The very latest twist

Yes, that was the latest theory yesterday, but it cast Bush as the dupe, which was unacceptable. So now, the very latest is that Saddam fooled his scientists into thinking he had WsMD and it was their misinformed beliefs that muddied the intelligence. Go figure.

[Alpharetta]

7. Help me with one thing: Why the difficulty with arms inspections?

I am puzzled by Saddam's behavior.

I believe he made inspections difficult for the U.N. teams. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my impression.

What was his motivation?

[glarius]

8. What's your point?...are you suggesting Bush was justified?

Who knows why...Perhaps he was just being spiteful because he was still angry from the Gulf war...who knows...That doen't excuse Bush's invasion...IMO

[Orangeone]

9. Self Defense

Would you want your neighbors to know your country is completely helpless? Bush attacked Iraq because he KNEW they didn't have any WMD.

[IggleDoer]

14. And we knew that didn't have much of a military force left.

It would be easy pickens!

[Alpharetta]

15. Of course Bush wasn't justified. The invasion was stupid. But so was Sadd

I just don't think Saddam played his cards very well. From a strategy standpoint, it seems to me he stood a better chance of retaining control of Iraq if he had been more acquiescent to the U.N. inspections.

So my question was not about justification of the war. It was about Saddam's motivations. I just don't get why he didn't drop the military swagger and pump us some oil.

[glarius]

16. The point I'm making is the invasion was criminal not "stupid" as you

characterize it...Saddam's card playing strategy is irrelevant in my opinion...Anyhow by the time Bush decided time was up and he was going to war, Saddam was co-operating with the U.M. inspectors...Bush was hell bent for war and that was that...The whole point of my thread here is that Bush and his buddies have been floundering around for excuses for this war and this is just their latest....Who knows what they'll come up with next.

[Alpharetta]

17. I agree. I'll pick a different thread to ask my question then

I agree completely that the invasion was illegal, unjustified, ill advised, poor politics, bad for our economy, destructive to world peace and obstructive to correcting our nation's justice, health, housing and educational systems.

I was looking for a discussion of whether Saddam could have played his cards better and why he didn't. I guess this thread is not the place.

[glarius]

20. O.K....I guess we are just on different tracks but we seem to agree about

what I was posting about...no hard feelings...:)

[IggleDoer]

13. If the police came to your door ...

And demanded to look for drugs, would you let them in without a legal warrent, even if you knew there were no drugs in your home. I don't want to defend a bad person, but he may have been defending his sovereignty against false accusations.

[ComerPerro]

10. That is really messed up

I have posted on this before, and it boggles the mind.

Whatever they can say to make it not Bush's fault.

Saddam didn't have WMD, but he wanted us to think he did. So to do that, he claimed he didn't, therefore forcing Bush to go to war????


:wtf:

[KittyWampus]

11. Sadam Had To Bluff-Considering His Neighborhood

and somewhat harsh tactics of controlling the majority of his Islamic Fundamentalist populatiopn.

Jeez, if they knew he didn't have the goods... they might've had at him.

[gulliver]

12. Bluff? Bluff? Isn't a bluff when ...

... you say something that isn't true, daring someone to disbelieve you.

Saddam gave interviews where he explicitly denied having WMDs. So, I'm confused. If he were bluffing that he had weapons when he really didn't, wouldn't he be saying "I have weapons of mass destruction."

The Bushies sure don't need a lot of theory in their pea brains before they start shooting, getting Americans killed, and spendind $160 billion. They must be out of their friggin' minds if they think people are going to fall for all of these funky theories.

You know what isn't a theory? The CIA leak isn't. But I don't see Bush even walking around the White House asking his people about that one. Wouldn't cost anyone their lives (except maybe the traitors), wouldn't cost a cent more than we are already paying him.

Theories? Spend billions.

National security criminals that are actually factual? Nothing. Crickets chirping.

[kiahzero]

21. Actually,

There was a lot of evidence that they had nothing, before the war. One of the defectors (Saddam's son in law, IIRC), whose testamony was used to demonstrate that Saddam had weapons, also said that the weapons were destroyed. The kick was that they kept the plans so, should attention ever by removed from that part of the world, they could get up and running quickly.

It is funny that they're still looking for them now that they're now thinking he never had them.