No WMDs in Iraq

[Gustaf]

OK, it seems clear that there are no WMDs in Iraq, so I decided to start a thread to discuss it's impact on the election campaign.

[© tweed]

It hurts a little bit but I don't see it being a major issue.

[Gustaf]

It hurts a little bit but I don't see it being a major issue.

So you don't expect a "liar, liar" debate to arise?

[© tweed]

It hurts a little bit but I don't see it being a major issue.

So you don't expect a "liar, liar" debate to arise?

Won't work.  We have an MA brahmin on our side.  A stronger candidate may be able to make it happen.

[Dave from Michigan]

It might hurt him a little but not that much

[Mort from NewYawk]

The issues around the Iraq war are the most significant in this election. The issue of WMD is only part of the larger issue of whether we need a "man of war" running the country (the subtext of the Bush, Clark and Kerry campaigns).

I would break it down like this:

BUSH VOTER
Saddam was bad news. Even if WMD was a ploy, we needed to get in there and get rid of him.

Now we need to stick it out until the Iraqi government is strong and free of foreign influence, even if we pay a significant price in dollars and lives, because this war is a battle in the war on terror.

SWING VOTER MORE LIKELY GOP
Saddam was bad news. Even if WMD was a ploy, we needed to get in there and get rid of him.
Now we need to get out of there, leave the whole mess to the Iraqis, and go after Osama.

SWING VOTER MORE LIKELY DEM
We have a problem with our intelligence services. Bush was misinformed, or used information selectively. If we knew there was no WMD, we shouldn't have gone in there. We shouldn't let Iraq turn into another Vietnam.

I wish this election could be about health, education and the economy, but I'll admit I have a lot of concerns about the safety of the country.

DEM VOTER
The Republican neo-cons, working with the oil companies, trumped up the WMD argument so that they could betray the country into supporting an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. We should stop killing people over there and allow international efforts to address the legitimate issues in that part of the world.


What we need are some good polls telling us where people are in their views on these issues.

[Gustaf]

The issues around the Iraq war are the most significant in this election. The issue of WMD is only part of the larger issue of whether we need a "man of war" running the country (the subtext of the Bush, Clark and Kerry campaigns).

I would break it down like this:

BUSH VOTER
Saddam was bad news. Even if WMD was a ploy, we needed to get in there and get rid of him.

Now we need to stick it out until the Iraqi government is strong and free of foreign influence, even if we pay a significant price in dollars and lives, because this war is a battle in the war on terror.

SWING VOTER MORE LIKELY GOP
Saddam was bad news. Even if WMD was a ploy, we needed to get in there and get rid of him.
Now we need to get out of there, leave the whole mess to the Iraqis, and go after Osama.

SWING VOTER MORE LIKELY DEM
We have a problem with our intelligence services. Bush was misinformed, or used information selectively. If we knew there was no WMD, we shouldn't have gone in there. We shouldn't let Iraq turn into another Vietnam.

I wish this election could be about health, education and the economy, but I'll admit I have a lot of concerns about the safety of the country.

DEM VOTER
The Republican neo-cons, working with the oil companies, trumped up the WMD argument so that they could betray the country into supporting an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. We should stop killing people over there and allow international efforts to address the legitimate issues in that part of the world.


What we need are some good polls telling us where people are in their views on these issues.

That kind of sums it up, at least on that issue. I agree that WMD is not the only factor in the Iraq War as an issue, but the Dems might finally have something to say there, which will  be a help for them.

[12th Doctor]

Other factors were stessed by the Bush people before we went to war.  Any argueement that the Dems make that we ONLY went in there because of WMD distorts the facts.  Also, it is obvious to anyone looking with an objective eye that he maintain the capacity to creat these things in a matter of a day and had the will to use them.  I'm not sure either that he didn't have some in his possession.  He could of buried them in the desert or given them to Syria.  Another fact that has come-out is that the head of the Pakistani Nuke program admitted selling radioactive material to Saddam's agents.

If the weapons are found to not have existed, it only proves that we need to put our intellegence community back together after Clinton tore it apart in the 90's.  And finally, there isn't ONE nation on the face of the planet that honestly believed the Hussien did NOT have weapons of mass distruction, so we wouldn't be the only ones at fault.

PS Why are people talking about this instead of the fact that Saddam brided the leaders of France, Germany and Russia with BLOOD money from Iraqi oil?

[Gustaf]

Other factors were stessed by the Bush people before we went to war.  Any argueement that the Dems make that we ONLY went in there because of WMD distorts the facts.  Also, it is obvious to anyone looking with an objective eye that he maintain the capacity to creat these things in a matter of a day and had the will to use them.  I'm not sure either that he didn't have some in his possession.  He could of buried them in the desert or given them to Syria.  Another fact that has come-out is that the head of the Pakistani Nuke program admitted selling radioactive material to Saddam's agents.

If the weapons are found to not have existed, it only proves that we need to put our intellegence community back together after Clinton tore it apart in the 90's.  And finally, there isn't ONE nation on the face of the planet that honestly believed the Hussien did NOT have weapons of mass distruction, so we wouldn't be the only ones at fault.

PS Why are people talking about this instead of the fact that Saddam brided the leaders of France, Germany and Russia with BLOOD money from Iraqi oil?

Maybe b/c these people aren't running for reelection in America?

[opebo]

I voted 'won't matter', but the more I think about it, it could actually help.  The reason is this - the War is directly linked to the 'cultural divide'.  People in the Bush states feel that this sort of unfair claim by the left is anti-American and it will increase their alienation from the 'Gore States' and the left wing elites.  I think these sorts of attacks by the Dems are an excellent way to shore up the loyalty of the Republican base.  These are people who feel that for decades the US has been pushed around, has been weak, etc, and they see Bush as a righteous warrior.  For the Dems to attack this I think may increase their margins in the leftist states, but will not help them in places like Ohio, Missouri, Iowa - the all important swing states.  And if this is their line of attack they can forget about any chance in a Southern State.

No, the economy is really their main issue, I think.  And it will definitely be better every month towards November.

[Nym90]

Why is the absence of WMDs in Iraq an "unfair" claim? And I think your obsession with this idea that all Bush has to do is turn out his base and he's got the election sewed up is a bit misguided. As much as you'd like to wish that it did, the GOP base does not constitute 48% of the population. It's more like 40%, and realistically as the incumbent Bush can probably count on 45% in a two-way race if he runs a decent campaign, but the lack of WMDs in Iraq definitely hurts Bush among swing voters. The only question is whether other issues can override it in importance to these voters. If the economy does improve as you say (I'm still very skeptical, but we'll see) then that would probably overshadow the war in Iraq as an issue.

Turning out the GOP base is definitely important to Bush, no question about that, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that deceiving the American people about the existence of WMDs in Iraq helps Bush. And even some in the base must be upset about the lack of WMDs, I don't think that they all subscribe to the "end justifies the means" theory.

[Gustaf]

I voted 'won't matter', but the more I think about it, it could actually help.  The reason is this - the War is directly linked to the 'cultural divide'.  People in the Bush states feel that this sort of unfair claim by the left is anti-American and it will increase their alienation from the 'Gore States' and the left wing elites.  I think these sorts of attacks by the Dems are an excellent way to shore up the loyalty of the Republican base.  These are people who feel that for decades the US has been pushed around, has been weak, etc, and they see Bush as a righteous warrior.  For the Dems to attack this I think may increase their margins in the leftist states, but will not help them in places like Ohio, Missouri, Iowa - the all important swing states.  And if this is their line of attack they can forget about any chance in a Southern State.

No, the economy is really their main issue, I think.  And it will definitely be better every month towards November.

I am not talking about leftist claims, it is getting obvious that it's the truth.

[opebo]

Why is the absence of WMDs in Iraq an "unfair" claim? And I think your obsession with this idea that all Bush has to do is turn out his base and he's got the election sewed up is a bit misguided. As much as you'd like to wish that it did, the GOP base does not constitute 48% of the population. It's more like 40%, and realistically as the incumbent Bush can probably count on 45% in a two-way race if he runs a decent campaign, but the lack of WMDs in Iraq definitely hurts Bush among swing voters. The only question is whether other issues can override it in importance to these voters. If the economy does improve as you say (I'm still very skeptical, but we'll see) then that would probably overshadow the war in Iraq as an issue.

Turning out the GOP base is definitely important to Bush, no question about that, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that deceiving the American people about the existence of WMDs in Iraq helps Bush. And even some in the base must be upset about the lack of WMDs, I don't think that they all subscribe to the "end justifies the means" theory.

The point is that a majority of voters in the states Bush won in 2000 will view all your above claims about 'deception' and other unfair and unfounded allegations as just left wing anti-Americanism.  My point is just that this line of attack helps Bush - in the same way that the anti-war movement helped Nixon.

I think the 46-48% base is realiable.   I'm perfectly willing to give the Democrats a similar 'base' - I just think the genuine swing voters are fewer than you do.  Keep in mind that the GOP base is well located - we can win with 48% of the vote.  

Just curious, why are you skeptical of economic improvement?  I agree the number of jobs created could be high or low, but it seems to me rather fast GDP growth is extremely likely over the next year or three.

[Gustaf]

Why is the absence of WMDs in Iraq an "unfair" claim? And I think your obsession with this idea that all Bush has to do is turn out his base and he's got the election sewed up is a bit misguided. As much as you'd like to wish that it did, the GOP base does not constitute 48% of the population. It's more like 40%, and realistically as the incumbent Bush can probably count on 45% in a two-way race if he runs a decent campaign, but the lack of WMDs in Iraq definitely hurts Bush among swing voters. The only question is whether other issues can override it in importance to these voters. If the economy does improve as you say (I'm still very skeptical, but we'll see) then that would probably overshadow the war in Iraq as an issue.

Turning out the GOP base is definitely important to Bush, no question about that, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that deceiving the American people about the existence of WMDs in Iraq helps Bush. And even some in the base must be upset about the lack of WMDs, I don't think that they all subscribe to the "end justifies the means" theory.

The point is that a majority of voters in the states Bush won in 2000 will view all your above claims about 'deception' and other unfair and unfounded allegations as just left wing anti-Americanism.  My point is just that this line of attack helps Bush - in the same way that the anti-war movement helped Nixon.

I think the 46-48% base is realiable.   I'm perfectly willing to give the Democrats a similar 'base' - I just think the genuine swing voters are fewer than you do.  Keep in mind that the GOP base is well located - we can win with 48% of the vote.  

Just curious, why are you skeptical of economic improvement?  I agree the number of jobs created could be high or low, but it seems to me rather fast GDP growth is extremely likely over the next year or three.

You micht be correct, b/c the turnout in the US is so low, those who vote are likely to be more dedicated. I know that 30% of Swedish voters switched parties in the last election, as compared with the election before that. But it's a different situation here.

You can win with 48%, but it wouldn't be that easy. You're also supposing that the voter spread will be similar to that in the 2000 election, which is likely but not certain.

[Nym90]

Sure, Bush could win with 48% since he's already done it once, but I don't see any way that you can win with 48% in a two-way race. Nader isn't running as a Green, and even if he runs as an independent, I highly doubt he gets more than 1% this time. If Kerry wins the popular vote 51-48, it would be very difficult for Bush to hang on to the electoral vote. Even more difficult at 52-48.

And it's not a left wing attack at all, I think that at least some people on the right are going to be pissed about the fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq. The bottom line is that Bush was very certain that there were, he didn't just say there probably are or there might be or that there were in the past, he said that there are WMDs there now. A lot of people put their faith in him and supported the war because they trusted Bush, and now they feel betrayed. Even if Bush didn't intentionally lie, the bottom line is that he was certain that he was right, and he definitely shouldn't have been certain. Since the GOP base seems to really like Bush's honesty, it becomes an issue. You can't just dismiss it as a left wing line of attack, there is evidence there for it.

And Bush made the WMDs the number one reason for going into Iraq. If he had just made the case along the lines of human rights violations, that would have been completely different, but the number one reason for going in there was that Iraq was supposedly a threat to our national security. Bush made the WMDs the issue, and it's too late to back away from them now. You can't have it both ways, you can't just use the WMDs for political advantage and now slough it off as an issue.

[opebo]

Sure, Bush could win with 48% since he's already done it once, but I don't see any way that you can win with 48% in a two-way race. Nader isn't running as a Green, and even if he runs as an independent, I highly doubt he gets more than 1% this time. If Kerry wins the popular vote 51-48, it would be very difficult for Bush to hang on to the electoral vote. Even more difficult at 52-48.

And it's not a left wing attack at all, I think that at least some people on the right are going to be pissed about the fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq. The bottom line is that Bush was very certain that there were, he didn't just say there probably are or there might be or that there were in the past, he said that there are WMDs there now. A lot of people put their faith in him and supported the war because they trusted Bush, and now they feel betrayed. Even if Bush didn't intentionally lie, the bottom line is that he was certain that he was right, and he definitely shouldn't have been certain. Since the GOP base seems to really like Bush's honesty, it becomes an issue. You can't just dismiss it as a left wing line of attack, there is evidence there for it.

And Bush made the WMDs the number one reason for going into Iraq. If he had just made the case along the lines of human rights violations, that would have been completely different, but the number one reason for going in there was that Iraq was supposedly a threat to our national security. Bush made the WMDs the issue, and it's too late to back away from them now. You can't have it both ways, you can't just use the WMDs for political advantage and now slough it off as an issue.

Bush could easily win again with 48% to Kerry at 52% in a two way race - all it would take would be a slightly better precent (about 100,000 votes - not unlikely) in Florida to make up for the absence of Nader.  Nader only mattered in New Hampshire and Florida, and because of population change, NH is now expendable.  Bush could get a slightly worse percent in the liberal Northeast and West Coast, more than making up for the gain in Florida - leading to the same 47.9% nationally, or even less.  And he would still win!  God I love the electoral college.

Regarding the 'reasons for going into Iraq' - most Americans from the states Bush needs to win know the reason was 9/11, not all this 'WMD' nonsense.   All that pointless WMD chatter Powell pushed Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld into was for U.N. consumption, and for the weak-kneed Democrats in the Senate, not for the true believers in the President's base.

[Reaganfan]

I bet they moved the WMD's out of Iraq before we moved in.

[© tweed]

I bet they moved the WMD's out of Iraq before we moved in.

We know all about it.  And you Republicans blame us Democrats for our wild 'conspiracy theories'.....

[Mort from NewYawk]

Bush could easily win again with 48% to Kerry at 52% in a two way race - all it would take would be a slightly better precent (about 100,000 votes - not unlikely) in Florida to make up for the absence of Nader.  Nader only mattered in New Hampshire and Florida, and because of population change, NH is now expendable.  Bush could get a slightly worse percent in the liberal Northeast and West Coast, more than making up for the gain in Florida - leading to the same 47.9% nationally, or even less.  And he would still win!  God I love the electoral college.

Regarding the 'reasons for going into Iraq' - most Americans from the states Bush needs to win know the reason was 9/11, not all this 'WMD' nonsense.   All that pointless WMD chatter Powell pushed Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld into was for U.N. consumption, and for the weak-kneed Democrats in the Senate, not for the true believers in the President's base.

Although I agree that Bush would win the electoral college if the popular vote is another draw, I really disagree that Bush could win with a 52-48% popular loss.

Just look at the analysis of OH and MO that Gustaf did on another thread. Both these states vote almost perfectly with the popular vote, and a loss in either could easily spell doom for the Republicans.

As far as WMDs go, among the swing voters all will be forgiven if things continue to go well. The Iraqis are steadily taking over the own policing, their leaders show every inclination to compromise to get a constitution and elected government, and the opposition does not seem to have a huge amount of popular support.

However, if things were to go badly in the heat of the election, and the number killed got into the thousands, I would say that at least 55-60% of likely voters will be open to Democratic anti-war arguments, and WMDs will come up again big time.

Although the GOP base may support the war as part of the larger war on terror, I'm not sure that Americans as a whole are ready to move from the powerful post Vietnam anti-war syndrome to a unilateral crusade against theocracy and for democracy in the Arab world, if it's going to be difficult.

[Gustaf]

I bet they moved the WMD's out of Iraq before we moved in.

What "they"? To where? I'm sorry, but I think that's ridicolous. No one would allow them in.

[Nym90]

Oh, ok, so the entire GOP base knew that Bush was lying all along, but since it was for a good cause, then that makes it ok. The end justifies the means. I see.

9/11 was the reason for going into Iraq? I don't even hear much of anybody try to make this claim anymore. There was clearly no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, even Bush himself pretty much admitted that, and then claimed that the charges that he was trying to establish such a link were false. Not only has Bush denied a link, he says that he never said that there was a link in the first place even. Sounds like you guys need to get your story straight....the argument I hear coming from Bush now is that Saddam was bad and that we're better off without him. I agree, but personally I don't think that's enough to justify the expense and loss of lives.

Sure, Bush could win with 48%, it's theoretically possible to win the EC with only 10% of the popular vote even, but it is highly unlikely that all of the shift toward Kerry would occur only in the red states and not at all in the blue states. (Yes, I'm using different colors than the media uses, but those are the colors Dave uses, so on this website, we should use those )

If Kerry were to win by 4 points, he would probably win Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire (he would win all of those if the shift towards kerry was uniform nationally), and would just barely lose Ohio and Nevada if he won by exactly 4 percent and the shift was exactly uniform everywhere (which of course it almost certainly won't be on either count, so both of those would be basically complete toss ups). It would be very very likely statsitically speaking that he would win at least a couple of those 5 at a minimum. The Bush states and Gore states aren't monolithic blocks that respond certain ways to certain arguments, all states include core GOP voters, core Dem voters, and swing voters, the only difference between the Bush states and Gore states is the relative size of the GOP base and of the Dem base in each state. There are still plenty of swing voters in every state who will be swayed by the WMD arguments even if the GOP base isn't.

[opebo]

Oh, ok, so the entire GOP base knew that Bush was lying all along, but since it was for a good cause, then that makes it ok. The end justifies the means. I see.

9/11 was the reason for going into Iraq? I don't even hear much of anybody try to make this claim anymore. There was clearly no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, even Bush himself pretty much admitted that, and then claimed that the charges that he was trying to establish such a link were false. Not only has Bush denied a link, he says that he never said that there was a link in the first place even. Sounds like you guys need to get your story straight....the argument I hear coming from Bush now is that Saddam was bad and that we're better off without him. I agree, but personally I don't think that's enough to justify the expense and loss of lives.

Sure, Bush could win with 48%, it's theoretically possible to win the EC with only 10% of the popular vote even, but it is highly unlikely that all of the shift toward Kerry would occur only in the red states and not at all in the blue states. (Yes, I'm using different colors than the media uses, but those are the colors Dave uses, so on this website, we should use those )

If Kerry were to win by 4 points, he would probably win Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire (he would win all of those if the shift towards kerry was uniform nationally), and would just barely lose Ohio and Nevada if he won by exactly 4 percent and the shift was exactly uniform everywhere (which of course it almost certainly won't be on either count, so both of those would be basically complete toss ups). It would be very very likely statsitically speaking that he would win at least a couple of those 5 at a minimum. The Bush states and Gore states aren't monolithic blocks that respond certain ways to certain arguments, all states include core GOP voters, core Dem voters, and swing voters, the only difference between the Bush states and Gore states is the relative size of the GOP base and of the Dem base in each state. There are still plenty of swing voters in every state who will be swayed by the WMD arguments even if the GOP base isn't.

First - Bush never lied.  It was just inaccurate intelligence.   Not actually that big a deal.  

Second - 9/11 was the reason for going into Iraq, just as it was the reason for Afghanistan, and will be for Iran.  It is the event that has changed the nature of our foreign policy.  It will also be responsible for getting back a real CIA that uses human intelligence, assasinates foreign leaders, and engineers coups where we need them.  In other words 9/11 brought us back to realisty - the world is rough and we have to fight.  WMD is a minor, minor detail - and emphasizing it makes Democrats look like the don't 'get' 9/11 or the need to protect America.

Third - One could easily see an increase in Republican voting in the Bush states with an increase in Democrat voting in the Gore states.  The whole point about polarization is that it increases strong differences.   The pro and anti-war sides throw into relief the very strong regional antipathies that exist in the US - the cultural divide.  The Bush state contain a lot of people who view the left wing coasts as actively anti-American.  Any attack of Bush by Kerry about this irrelevant WMD issue will increase this anger and resentment.

[Gustaf]

Oh, ok, so the entire GOP base knew that Bush was lying all along, but since it was for a good cause, then that makes it ok. The end justifies the means. I see.

9/11 was the reason for going into Iraq? I don't even hear much of anybody try to make this claim anymore. There was clearly no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, even Bush himself pretty much admitted that, and then claimed that the charges that he was trying to establish such a link were false. Not only has Bush denied a link, he says that he never said that there was a link in the first place even. Sounds like you guys need to get your story straight....the argument I hear coming from Bush now is that Saddam was bad and that we're better off without him. I agree, but personally I don't think that's enough to justify the expense and loss of lives.

Sure, Bush could win with 48%, it's theoretically possible to win the EC with only 10% of the popular vote even, but it is highly unlikely that all of the shift toward Kerry would occur only in the red states and not at all in the blue states. (Yes, I'm using different colors than the media uses, but those are the colors Dave uses, so on this website, we should use those )

If Kerry were to win by 4 points, he would probably win Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire (he would win all of those if the shift towards kerry was uniform nationally), and would just barely lose Ohio and Nevada if he won by exactly 4 percent and the shift was exactly uniform everywhere (which of course it almost certainly won't be on either count, so both of those would be basically complete toss ups). It would be very very likely statsitically speaking that he would win at least a couple of those 5 at a minimum. The Bush states and Gore states aren't monolithic blocks that respond certain ways to certain arguments, all states include core GOP voters, core Dem voters, and swing voters, the only difference between the Bush states and Gore states is the relative size of the GOP base and of the Dem base in each state. There are still plenty of swing voters in every state who will be swayed by the WMD arguments even if the GOP base isn't.

First - Bush never lied.  It was just inaccurate intelligence.   Not actually that big a deal.  

Second - 9/11 was the reason for going into Iraq, just as it was the reason for Afghanistan, and will be for Iran.  It is the event that has changed the nature of our foreign policy.  It will also be responsible for getting back a real CIA that uses human intelligence, assasinates foreign leaders, and engineers coups where we need them.  In other words 9/11 brought us back to realisty - the world is rough and we have to fight.  WMD is a minor, minor detail - and emphasizing it makes Democrats look like the don't 'get' 9/11 or the need to protect America.

Third - One could easily see an increase in Republican voting in the Bush states with an increase in Democrat voting in the Gore states.  The whole point about polarization is that it increases strong differences.   The pro and anti-war sides throw into relief the very strong regional antipathies that exist in the US - the cultural divide.  The Bush state contain a lot of people who view the left wing coasts as actively anti-American.  Any attack of Bush by Kerry about this irrelevant WMD issue will increase this anger and resentment.

I did a little check, based on the assumption that small states are the way to go, since they are favoured by the EC. I came up with the following result:

The smallest percentage a candidate could win with is 22.8%: 1 vote more than 50% in all states except CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH, PA, MI, NJ, GA, NC and MA. I will post a map of it, if you want.  

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did a little check, based on the assumption that small states are the way to go, since they are favoured by the EC. I came up with the following result:

The smallest percentage a candidate could win with is 22.8%: 1 vote more than 50% in all states except CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH, PA, MI, NJ, GA, NC and MA. I will post a map of it, if you want.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd love to see this!  I think it might illustrate that winning with 47-48% is not at all unthinkable in a highly regionally polarized country.

[Gustaf]

OK, here we go...hopefully, I have some bad memories from posting maps.