Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Beyond that, I'd bet another Doug Nickle that Bush insiders had a
good idea that if there were any WMDs in Iraq they were few and
far between because they were directing the inspectors where to go
and what to look for ...
(I read the comment that "I'd bet another Doug Nickle" as suggesting
that you weakly believe the proposition.)
You may be presuming too high a level of competence or honesty, even
for a weakly held notion.
Please remember my posting of Sat, 31 May 2003:
... today's BBC news, 2003 May 31
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/2951440.stm
says the following:
The Pentagon has a list of around 900 sites which may provide
clues to Saddam Hussein's alleged chemical and biological
arsenal. So far, around 200 locations have been searched, said
Pentagon officials on Friday.
... Most likely most of those 700 locations will be empty or
clueless. ...
But suppose one of those sites contained enough weaponized anthrax
to fill a Johnson Baby powder container like those that that many
grown up travelers carry? What if someone who is unfriendly to
the US and has the right contacts gets hold of it before a US Army
team comes by?
It may be that none of those 700 uninvestigated sites have or had
anything dangerous in them. But the question is what proof can
you offer *now* that no one hostile to the US has visited any of
those sites in the past 6 weeks, and taken something small?
As I said in another message,
... There are three possible explanations:
* the Administration knew that Saddam Hussein was bluffing ...
This possibility suggests that Bush lied. It also suggests
that the Bush Administration was incompetent at lying, since
it would make more sense for it to act surprised when later
inspectors found little.
* the Administration recognized that its prime hold on the US
comes from fear ... By giving looters a chance, it increased
the risk that terrorists will gain powerful weapons. ...
This possibility requires great cynicism.
* the Administration was simply incompetent, and did not send
enough soldiers to check out sites before looters came.
This possibility requires believing that politicians who
increased their party's vote in an off-year election could not
apply that same talent to managing a politically important
part of their years in office.
My postings have not been answered, except by Gautam Mukunda and John
D. Giorgis.
Gautam Mukunda said
... the US has more urgent/important things to do ...
which suggests that he figured (probabilitistically speaking) that
Bush adminstration knew that Saddam Hussein was bluffing, that Saddam
did not possess dangerous weapons, and that therefore the Bush
adminstration was lying about what is generally considered a national
rather than a partisan issue, and was incompetent in its follow
through. Either that or Gautam figured that a radiological, nuclear,
chemical, or biological attack was unlikely even if possible, but
acceptable if it occurred.
In response to a message by [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying,
>A) What could possibly be more important than finding the
>weapons of mass destruction that were the entire
>justification for the invasion in the first place?
John D. Giorgis said,
Off the top of my head:
-Toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein
-Restoring Civic Order
-Preventing Mass Civilian Casulaties
to which I responded by saying,
... my understanding is that you are saying that for Americans as
a whole, restoring civic order in Bagdad is more important than
preventing an anthrax or radiological bomb attack against
Washington, DC.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
