March 20, 2007
Words Of Mass Confusion -- Or, Maybe We're Overthinking This
Obama assumed Iraq had WMDs. But he didn't think the administration made the case for them.
A distinction without a difference? Or evidence of political calculation?
In other words -- if the point of going to war was to prevent Saddam Hussein from using his WMDs and Obama assumed that Hussein did, indeed possess them, then why would it necessarily matter whether the administration had made the case for them or not?
Obama implies that had the administration made the case for war, he might have changed his mind. The principle here is: If you think SH has the weapons, then you go to war. If he doesn't or you're not sure, then you don't. The question does not depend on whether the "case" for war is made. It hinges on whether WMDs actually exist, right?
Now -- maybe you don't think that WMD possession is a sufficient condition to wage war. Or that you might have gone to war but didn't think the administration deserved its use-of-force authorization from Congress. But then -- say so.
Or are we reading too much into this? After all, Obama got the major question "right" -- and right from the start.
Posted at 12:08 PM
Comments
WMD can encompass many things and meanings. You know that. And many thought they were unusable or not of enough to make more than be pesty to his neighbors. They were not believed to be of immediate threat to others or us or the world at large. Read any of the books out on the run up, i.e. State of War, ect.
Alot of people felt there was not much threat and the war was not justified, such as me and I'm just a regular person.
I did not buy what the administration was selling.
vwcat | 03.20.07 12:27 PM
 |
Yeah, you are totally overthinking this.
howieinseattle | 03.20.07 12:27 PM
|
One can think or assume that Iraq had WMD, most everyone did (two administartions, the press, the american people) but then believe, for the reason states in the book, that after the administartion presented its evidence, that such an assumption was shown to be false or unlkely. Moreover, because it was flimsy, the immennet threat the administartion made Saddam to be seemed unlikely.
dpg | 03.20.07 12:32 PM
|
what vwcat said. people still don't get this? most everyone assumed they had chem and bio. a lot of people, though, seriously doubted they had any nukes. the admin moved up one level of generality to "WMD" to sell the idea they had nukes without actually saying that straight out. obama appears to have been in the camp that saw the underlying political game and thus never bought the policy, because if there were actual substance there, the sleight-of-hand would be unnecessary.
gabbneb | 03.20.07 12:36 PM
|
You'd be foolish not to have assumed that Saddam had some remnants of WMD's. The bigger question here is: Was Saddam Hussein an imminent threat to the United States based on the flimsy evidence that was presented to us prior invasion? The answer is a solid and emphatic NO. Barack was correct in his assesments of the arguments against going to war with Iraq.
Tammy | 03.20.07 12:44 PM
|
Why aren't these posts signed any longer?
rich miller | 03.20.07 12:44 PM
|
Let me see if I get this straight: Obama opposes the war and turns out to be right. Rice, Cheney, Bush, et. al., push the idea of WMDs, are totally wrong, and somehow you think that Obama has a problem with his veracity? Are you all that stupid or is it you just can't admit that someone who was from Illinois knew more than the so-called "Gang of 500" inside the Beltway?
mrgavel | 03.20.07 12:45 PM
|
I believe the qualifer that's being overlooked here is "imminent threat." He's been consistent on this point, and the imminent threat thresh-hold is good policy.
gwen | 03.20.07 12:52 PM
|
Agreed with gabbneb and vwcat; Obama seemed to be saying that he assumed there were some WMD, chem and bio, but that he didn't think there was a threat. In fact it looks like Obama hasn't contradicted himself at all.
From Larry King:
"I did not think that the administration had made the case that there were weapons of mass destruction that would cause an imminent threat to the United States."
From his book:
"Like most analysts, I assumed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear arms.... What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administration's rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete."
Matt Weiner | 03.20.07 12:58 PM
|
You're trying too hard to find a contradiction. Senator Obama's quote to Larry King was about the evidence being too flimsy for WMDs posing an imminent threat. The book quote is about simply whether there were WMD. It's completely consistent to believe there were some WMDs in Iraq, but not believe there was enough evidence of a threat that would justify a preemptive invasion and occupation of a country halfway around the world.
In fact, this distinction is key: it's exactly the difference between Obama and the other Democratic candidates. He rightly thought that, even if there are some WMD in Iraq, the evidence from the administration did not justify a blank check for Bush to invade Iraq. The other candidates thought the opposite.
Rob | 03.20.07 01:03 PM
|
I guess he was against the war before he was for it.
In all seriousness, you have to appreciate how fast Obama can get his attack dogs out to dispute anything negative against him.
james | 03.20.07 01:12 PM
|
Remember Obama was not in Senate at the time and never received any closed door briefings or the details behind NIE. So just like any average citizen he recognized that there was not a solid case for justifying the war based on whatever he knew.
A very simple question is..
Knowing what we know today about Iraq, Saddam and WMDs..
Obama/Edwards/Hillary would not have taken us to war while Bush/Cheney/McCain/Romney/Rudy would have still taken us to war.
Its as simple as that!
Matt | 03.20.07 01:23 PM
|
War opposition was never boiled down to merely whether Saddam had WMDs. Many people who opposed the war in 2003 (I was one of them) thought maybe there were some WMDs there, but weren't convinced that pre-emptive war and regime change creating anarchy was a better way to secure them than using the U.N. inspections. For all we know, at the same time Iraqis were looting the historic treasures of Baghdad immediately after the war there could have been others who were hauling those WMDs out of Iraq and into Iran or Syria.
his girl friday | 03.20.07 01:27 PM
|
The key word here is IMMINENT. Saddam was never an imminent threat to the U.S. How any congresscritter could have voted for this DUMB war after seeing Colin Powell give his absurd presentation at the UN just boggles the mind. Colin Powell didn't even believe in his own presentation.
Joshue Talyor | 03.20.07 01:30 PM
|
James, Obama does not need any paid attack dogs like republicans need. Its all about common sense. The typical smear tactics of right will NOT work this time as it is a people powered movement.
Matt | 03.20.07 01:37 PM
|
gwen wrote, 'I believe the qualifer that's being overlooked here is "imminent threat." He's been consistent on this point, and the imminent threat thresh-hold is good policy.'
I think this is exactly the point. I think it's fair to say the most of the senators and reps who voted against war authorization in 2003 had a similar view: Saddam probably did have some WMD's (though not nuclear weapons) or else why would he have resisted UN inspections, but that his government didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S. or its interests. That happened to be own position as a citizen at the time, so there's no inconsistency.
Hotline writes, "Obama implies that had the administration made the case for war, he might have changed his mind. The principle here is: If you think SH has the weapons, then you go to war. If he doesn't or you're not sure, then you don't. The question does not depend on whether the "case" for war is made. It hinges on whether WMDs actually exist, right?"
No, wrong. It hinged on the whether it was a threat worth fighting a war over. Lots of countries have some WMD's, and there having them and being unfriendly to the U.S. does not require an invasion.
yellowdogjz | 03.20.07 02:21 PM
|
A lot of peopl thought Saddam was a bad guy, which could lead to assumptions. However, assumptions are not evidence, and you know this if you've ever spent a second in a constitutional law class or even watched "Law and Order." There was no good evidence, the evidence the Bush Administration put up was faulty, and anybody that voted for this war was going trying to score political points in what they thought was going to be a fast and cheap war. We should hold those who voted for this war and played those political games accountable, and that is why I will never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Primary
John | 03.20.07 02:26 PM
|
But if elections are about the future this sets up as an interesting case. Assuming, arguendo, that a nefarious tyrant has WMDs, (which we take to mean biological, chemical, and covets nuclear weapons) and that individual may or may not have contacts to international terrorist organizations, what would you do?
Jonah Wells | 03.20.07 02:48 PM
|
Slow news day?
goethean | 03.20.07 02:52 PM
|
The term "WMD" gets thrown around a lot. Technically, Saddam may never have had any WMDs ever. WMDs are nuclear weapons and biological weapons which are deadly and contagious. There is no evidence that Iraq had either. No chemical weapons are WMDs. Anthrax is generally not a WMD. It is a vector that only directly infects - there are no secondary infections.
He had "NBC" weapons, at one point, though probably not in 2003. They are the catch-all term for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It is a broader area that includes everything from mustard gas to 100 megaton bombs. Many NBC weapons do not pose a threat to an entire city, and are thus not WMDs.
The Bush administration and the press happily blurred the line between NBCs and WMDs. Perhaps Obama did not. Iraq was assumed to have the components for poison gas and growth media for weaponized anthrax - neither of which are WMDs, though both are NBCs. Obama's statements that he assumed Iraq had chemical and biological weapons but not WMDs is correct even without the "immenent threat to America" qualifier.
Njorl | 03.20.07 03:29 PM
|
Doing the Clintons' bidding for them, I see.
Yes, let's pretend his position in 2002, before going into Iraq, was all "muddled" and "nuanced." Nothing like speaking at an anti-war rally, when polls supported the war in the 70's and he was about to launch a make-or-break Senate campaign that screams confusion, right? Very, very confusing indeed.
cms | 03.20.07 04:01 PM
|
Wow, I expect someone like Ben Smith of the Politico to regurgitate Clintonian spin, but Hotline? Utter rubbish.
As others have said, "imminent threat" might be a phrase worth noting.
John | 03.20.07 05:08 PM
|
What does Law and Order have to do with war? They don't have to have all the evidence before conducting a search or making an arrest - that's how they get the evidence in the first place.
R | 03.21.07 01:01 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
