In Your Own Opinion - What happens to Bush if WMD's are not found?

Well, two issues will be brought up.

1) American crediblity, here and worldwide.

2) How we analyze information and use it for national defense. We will have to look at why this failed.

 

Well, the pattern is long established;

Think back a bit...1st...9-11...then Iraq re: 9-11...Public ( at the time) doesn't buy it...ok, so let's go with humanitarian angle...the rights of women in Iraq, and so forth...no sell...let's try nukes...public sits up and takes notice...approval for war skyrockets...as it becomes more and more evident that the nukes angle isn't accurate, we don't see a single declaration refuting that claim from admin, rather we see a shift to focus on 'smaller' WMDs...now it's not about nukes, it's about chem. weapons...no official abandonment of Nuke argument, just isn't brought up anymore...so now it's about WMD in general, and the media blitz continues...every day sees another statement to the fact that Hussein has amassed a frighfull armoury of WMD, Bush even going so far as to call his collection among the most powerful in the world, and containing some of the most deadly and terrifying weapons...

Now, as we see, the searches have been going on for months, no finds except the odd declaration of find which later proves to be nothing or, at most, supposition...and the admin quietly shifts it's argument back to the humanitarian angle...no declaration of No Mas on the WMD is or ever will be forthcoming, I expect, regardless of what is or is not found...party line will continue to be " Still looking" while at the same time playing up the Sadaam is out! angle, an angle which was clearly deemed insufficient to warrant the invasion before the fact, but might sell it now, as the American people have already been fed a ton of Us vs. The World diatribe, and many of us are likely to overlook much info which makes US look bad, wrong, and to have acted in an aggressive military fashion without just cause.


So I predict that the admin, if no WMD are found, will continue to push the Us v The World angle, while stressing the previously insufficient Regime Change angle...the deciding factors with regards to the effect this will have on the Bush admin will be three fold: Does the Fear Factor which Bush stressed wear off enough for people to consider the facts in objectivity, will the Us v The World angle keep Americans from wanting to declare Mea Culpa, and will Bush successfully shift the focus to another focus; ie Iran, Korea, the Israel/Palestinian negotiations, economic recovery, or whatever...If it happens, he might try and play up a capture of Hussein or Bin Laden as somehow closing the book on the war...but another thing you can be sure of: If terrorist activity increases, Bush will cite this as proof that he was right and drastic measures were needed to combat it...if it decreases he will cite that as evidence that his measures worked...you can already see that double talk starting in here.

 

He get's re-elected in a landslide.

 

Nice, MacB.

Bigman: Please let go of this thing about Bush relying on intel from the Clinton years. It isn't true. The stuff he allegedly ignored and/or inflated was new stuff. If Bush and co. try and push this off on old intel it'll be transparently disingenuous and it'll make them look stupid for not having more recent intel. The stuff in question is new. Period.

 

I can't believe people who play rock and roll hang out with you.

 

Don't be so sure. This has barely even started yet.

 

Bigman,

I liked how you called me Mr. Jones. Very respectful.

The most damning allegations are that the Bush team relied on intel from Iraqi opposition, which had clear bias, and ignored reports from the CIA which indicated there was no proof of WMD's. That stuff, while incorporating old intel, was basically fresh. The point is Bush can't sluff this off on Clinton and, if he tries, it makes him look less than competent.

As for the spin, etc, I repeat: this has only just begun. The allegations are only beginnin to filter into the consciousness of the electorate and there are new ones practically every day. And the inquiries (which look likely to happen) haven't even started yet and won't for a while. Bad call to make predictions on the spin when we don't even know yet what they'll be spinning. There may well be a smoking gun (or several smoking guns) between now and the election -- from either direction.

 

No one ever said that, not even the Iraqis. One thing that alarmed me was..The Iraqis could only account for half of the 20,000 liters of antrax, that they were supposed to have destroyed.
The question has never been whether there were WMDs..
The question is what happened to them?

 

With a republican house and senate, I doubt impeachment will happen.

But one can dream...

 

Who cares whether they find evidence of WMD or not? Ok, so that's a slight exxageration. However, the actual results of the situation should not be determinitve of our evaluation of the decision making process. If the administration made a reasonable, but incorrect decision, I hold nothing against them.

On try flipside, even if they were correct in there belief that WMD existed, but didn't ever gather enough evidence, made a poorly informed decision, didn't consider possible consequences, and just got lucky... then it's still a bad decision.

When the ultimate fact in question is unknowable, nobody's always going to be 100% right. And you shouldn't judge them on that basis. Obviously, if one has a large enough sample size - you can evaluate the process itself by the outcomes because the odds of a significant deviation are reduced. But in situations like this, it's impossible.

Look at it this way - if there were evidence of a 70% chance that Iraq had WMD that you believe they're going to use soon, give to Al Queda, or perform other dastardly activities with... isnt' that justification enough for invasion? Yet, there's a pretty decent chance there's not anything there. And if we only have 1 such event, it's not important if you turn out to be wrong.

From the limited facts I'm aware of, I think that the Bush administration went in too quickly. However, I'm not going to increase my censure simply because they happened to be wrong.

I'm sure that many will make a big deal about it. But they're emphasizing the wrong end of the problem.

 

Does he play for Striper?

 

Nothing will happen.

Bush wins hands down.

The only thing that can sabotage him is if the rebuilding in Iraq goes horribly wrong.

So far, so good

DD

 

Keep telling yourself that, buddy. Not a single thing is going well for Bush right now and it's only getting worse. Talk about sunshine ass...

 

Batman,

Bush is enjoying great support, people that hate him are trying everything to bring him down, it is sickening and it has a backlash attached.

Just as most people were tired of the Monica Lewinsky saga, so too will people tire of the Bush lied about WMD saga.

Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that someone lied, you just can't do it, and it makes people that say he lied look foolish.

There simply can NEVER be proof that someone is lying, all they have to say is..."no I wasn't"

It is ridiculous to say the least.

Now if Iraq starts having mass riots etc, then he would be in trouble.

DD

 

Your simple glib posts fit very well with the Bush agenda, say as little as possible and hope for the best. Keep those fingers crossed...

 

But Dadakota it's already started there. Okay maybe not "mass", but how many of our people have died in the last two weeks? 15? 16? Not to mention the wounded. And draconian methods the US is using to "keep the peace" And, judging by the precedence of Afghanistan, it doesn't look like things are going to improve anytime soon. And certainly not before the next election.

 

No King

Dada, unlike some posters, at least is not insulting and condescending.

He at least will listen and at times actually be a bit insightful.