At 01:02 PM 7/25/2003 +0000 Robert J. Chassell wrote:>
>If that is the case, why didn't the Administration say so? Why did
>the Pentagon say at the end of May that it was still intending to
>investigate 700 sites? Why, throughout May, did the US government say
>it was increasing the size of its inspection force?
Uhhh.... because finding WMD's was considered a very nice way of deterring
criticism of the war?
>Do you mean to suggest that there was no `Plan B' to deal with the
>possibility of great success, but that the Bush Administration was
>counting on a long formal military resistance?
I think that the Administration was not counting on a long formal
resistance, but also did not seriously expect the nearly unhindered
progress to Baghdad that was experienced. Suffice to say, the level of
resistance was lower than their almost all but their most wildly optimistic
dreams.
Heck, Paul Wolfowitz admitted today that they were seriously expecting
certain Iraqi military units to "turn", and to be allies used in
counterattacks. As it was, if they had turned, they wouldn't have been
needed for formal combat.
> ... it is impossible to believe at this point that an immediate
> search of those sites by all available men would have reduced the
> number of weapons ...
>
>How can we know this? The search was not undertaken. Only
>interrogations would tell, and perhaps people who know have not been
>captured, or, if captured, not yet turned.
Given: The WMD's were in the hands of the Iraqi Military
Given: The Iraqi Military simply evaporated in retreat.
Conclusion: The Iraqi Military could have taken pretty much any WMD's they
wanted in the evaporation process, for which they had nearly a year to
prepare.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
