If Mik's words can be parsed in this way does this story contradict NYT? And no I'm not a troll, or else I've been trolling for 4 years. Just want to get this as right as the fonts.
'And no I'm not a troll, or else I've been trolling for 4 years.'
and a very SLOW troll, at that!!
ya, it is confusing as to which came first, but I think it is the way we want, that it was unguarded and gone before we got there....I guess we'll find out tomorrow.
all in all, I feel better than I did 4 hours ago...it seemed a little grim...
We can only confirm that the weapons weren't there when we looked for them.
I read the rest of the available information as saying that the UN can only confirm that weapons were there 3 months before we got there.
The weapons were not lost due to poor security by us - they were transported out of Iraq or dispersed around Iraq between the time that the UN got out and we got in.
The only logical places to go with this are that the UN wasn't going to do anything about these types of weapons so we had to invade, and we should have actually invaded earlier and with more of an element of surprise in the timing, rather than give UN inspectors time to leave. Of course, Kerry is not a man of logic and reason.
Just by what Drudge reported, I was under the impression that our forces arrived in Iraq, but did not arrive to secure the facility until April 10, 2003, over a month after fighting. They were not yet able to secure the facility due to the fact that they had to work their way to the area (this is what Drudge appears to be saying) and upon their arrival, the troops did not note the existence of the weapons that are missing. This would mean that they disappeared sometime during the initial stages of the invasion or before the fighting began when the U.N. was responsible for the security of the facility.
Did anyone else have the same analysis of the story?