Hypothetical: They find WMD's in Iraq

[ringmastery]

Is Dean finished as a candidate? Is this a huge risk if he's the nominee that sometime in the next 11 months they will find WMD's in Iraq?

[brainshrub]

1. It's still an illegal invasion.

WMDs or not.

[blm]

14. Dean never said it was illegal. How could he play that card, now?

Dennis and Sharpton are the only ones who said it was illegal.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. That depends on whether you consider Dean a one-issue candidate or not.

[htuttle]

3. Hypothetical: Monkeys fly out of my butt

What would Dean's response be?

ps. There is no basement at the Alamo, and there are no WMD's in Iraq.

(on edit)

pps. The Bush administration still lied about it. Here's another thread in GD that has some Senators stating that the Bush admin said that Hussein not only had WMD in quantity, but could deliver them to the East Coast as well. Unless that Enquirer/Pravda story about Hussein being in possession of a flying saucer turns out to be true, this just isn't possible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=921629

[ringmastery]

4. maybe

but that won't stop criminals from manufacturing evidence if they need a boost in the polls...

[damnraddem]

12. But if you visit the basement of the Alamo, then ...

monkeys WILL fly out your butt. You'll also find Saddam's saucer there, filled with WMDs. They were all ready to attack Laredo when Saddam was captured (by 'they,' I mean your butt monkeys -- secretly working with Saddam).

[HuckleB]

5. They'd better find it in the amounts claimed by Bush....

[cspiguy]

7. I don't think it matters how much. All they need to show is intent to use

it in revenge for the 91 war, etc. and enough program left running to make the stuff after the UN inspectors bugged out and the sanctions were lifted. The State of the Union speech actually said - the U.S. cannot wait until the "gathering threat" became an IMMINENT threat. So this will be spun six ways sideways by election 2004. I would personally much rather talk about health care costs and availability and jobs, anyway.

[HuckleB]

10. Bush used specific, large amounts to justify war.

Those amounts have to be found, in my opinion.

[cspiguy]

6. why would it? If the debate "Moves On" to domestic issues,

many of us still do not have jobs, healthcare, educational opportunities, retirement benefits, mass transportation, independant energy, safe food supply, healthy dietary habits/information, free music but we do have plenty of greedy politicians, executives, and military-industrial complexes. He has a lot to work with that meets the people where they live. Bill Clinton would still be elected in a landslide, why not Dean.

[bowens43]

8. WMD being found

is not relevant to whether or not the invasion and occupation of Iraq was justified.

[vi5]

9. Do you really think the majority of Americans feel that way?

I mean honestly. I feel that way......and a lot of people on here feel that way. But let's be realistic. I would place good money betting that a very large majority of americans would not feel that way if in addition to getting Saddam, that we also found a stash of weapons. We could talk about the illegality of it based on international law until we were blue in the face. We could cite passages of law and relevant historical cases and present all the information in the world and still the majority of american voters would not want to believe that what we did was wrong. Even people who were uncomfortable with it would be swayed.

[Frodo]

13. It doesn't matter. We spun it wrong from the beginning.

From the earliest days after it became clear that we weren't going to find an ICBM parked in Saddam's parking lot, our candidates were chanting "but WHERE is OBL? WHERE is Saddam? WHERE are the WMDs?

We already look silly enough today saying "Saddam never really mattered" after his is found. Trying to spin off of WMDs or OBL (IF either is found) will be impossible.

Bush spun off that there were lots of reasons for going to war and WE made it all about two guys and WMDs. If he succeeds by those standards we'll have nothing left.

Now... the liklihood of actually FINDING them before the election? Depends on how think your tinfoil is.

[West Coast Democrat]

23. Are you a Lieberman supporter?

You should be.

[Frodo]

24. No. Though I'm not a Lieberman opponent either.

He's been pretty popular in CT for a long time. And CT isn't exactly a conservative state.

[damnraddem]

11. That horse is long dead -- way past time to stop beating it.

They aren't going to find the vast stores of WMDs ready for use -- that is, what would be necessary to back up the claims made when they invaded. Secret labs, even if they exist, just don't cut it.

[goodhue]

15. not much of a risk methinks

since there haven't been any WMDs in Iraq for about 10 years now

[FubarFly]

16. Was Iraq ever a direct threat to the US?

Will finding hidden, buried, and undeployable WMDs change that fact one iota?

Would that suddenly make the invasion just and necessary?

If Iraq had WMD's and didn't use them when their very sovereignty
was at stake, and didn't use them to protect Saddam Hussein ,(who might have some small incentive to stay out of captivity), then why would any rational person think they were important even if found?

Could it be that Iraq, like most countries, planned on having WMD's but never planned on using them? That Saddam, although a tyrant, a murderer, and a former regional threat, was not the meglomanicial supervillian that the US propaganda portrayed him as being? Could it be that his interests of self-preservation outweighed any hope of resurrecting his shattered delusions of regional dominance? Which is maybe why he agreed to destroy his WMDs in the first place?

Iraq's WMDs are and have always been a red herring . The good news is that a majority of Americans are coming close to understanding this. We aren't there yet, as a good many people are still tragically misinformed. But if people who know better (like yourself?) spend more time supplying people with the facts about Iraq, and less time fretting about the perceived ignorance of the American public, then the truth about this illegal invasion will not only continue to be a a boon to the Dean campaign, but actively hurt b*sh's reeelection chances- irregardless of any new WMD finds.

[ramapo]

18. No, of course not, but it doesn't matter

So what if Saddam had WMDs? There are an awful lot of these things floating around.

Would his WMDs be a threat to our homeland? Of course not...What would've been the delivery mechanism? Saddam has proved that he is not suicidal. If he had used WMDs on the US or an ally, then a large part of Iraq would likely have quickly ceased to exist.

The propaganda value of WMDs is enormous. WMDs can be, and have been, used to justify almost anything. This will only increase as the '04 propaganda machine ramps up.

[FubarFly]

19. The propaganda is only effective if people are

afraid enough to believe it. Capturing Saddam like we did may have unwittedly helped to undemonize him in the eyes of many Americans: "This is what all the fuss was about? Some bum in a (forgive me for saying it) spider hole?" It is my intent to use this to inspire a more practical and logical assessment about our little invasion. I've already seen signs of this happening. People who I've talked to who were previously intractable about the war, have been more recently surprisingly receptive to the facts. Hopefully, others are having similiar experiences.

[TexasPatriot]

17. If they find WMDs in iraq

or on 'Ships of Death' floating in the Indian Ocean
or details of mysterious shipments of WMD to Syria
etc... before the election:

then it's going to suck for whichever candidate is the Dem choice (even Lieberman).

I'm not sure this is something that is really worth discussing - if it turns out the SOB actually had WMD in any amounts (of course, larger amounts would be worse) then even the pro-war resolution people are going to face a Rovian gloat machine like none before. I wouldnt use this concept as a litmus test.

[Silverhair]

20. Joe Sixpack's response:

Joe isn't gonna give a care about legal nicities. It's Joe that made movies like, "Death Wish" and the "Dirty Harry" series profitable. All the discussion of legalities will turn Joe off.

Joe sees things much more simply. If WMD are found, he will see it a Bush acting to protect America before we were hit again. If someone does try to talk legalities to him, he will ask, "Was 9-11 legal?"

OK, back to me talking for me now instead of for Joe. I get frustrated by all of the talk that doesn't take into account how the typical middle American will see it. Remember, support for the war was about 57% before SH was captured. If WMD are found, it will leap.

[FubarFly]

22. People don't like to be told they're stupid,

and they don't like being lied to.

Joe Sixpack is capable of seeing through the b*shco facade all by his lonesome: "Oh now they find WMD's, b*sh is just trying to save his ass." Once someone's credibility is shot, it won't just magically reappear. b*sh's credibility with a now majority of Americans is seriously impaired. It's our job to make sure it stays this way. Finding WMDs in and of itself won't help b*sh, finding WMDs and silence or waffling by his opposition will. No matter what happens in Iraq now, the truth of b*sh's lying, treachery, and incompetance will never change, as long as enough Democrats have the spine to stay consistantly critical.

[Capn Sunshine]

21. This shows complete ignorance of the Dean campaign

The Iraq thing, that is all well and good, but it's a media label.

This campaign is about taking the country back from the corporatists pigs that have seiezed it and changing the Vichy like go-along democrats who continue to support thiscrap.

87 billion. THAT is on thing it's about. Halliburton gouging. That stuff is the basis for what is WRONG, not justthe war itself.

How can you even posit that WMDS will be found, when the whole idea was they were able to be used on us and our troops in 15 minutes? Doesn't it seem that not finding them BY NOW negates that argument?

You can't keep letting the opposition frame the argument for you, that's a dead end.