Posted on 12/15/2005 5:14:36 AM PST by mal
Boy, that's been my question since before the 9/11 commission. The most that I can figure out is that President Bush's much-vaunted political advisors screwed this up royally.
They seem to have a single strategy, namely what they call rope-a-dope. In this strategy, they let the opposition exspend all its energy and use all of their arguments before fighting back and blowing them out of the water.
Unfortunately, this strategy doesn't seem to work where the opposition argument gets traction, and the Keystone Kops working in the White House never seemed to have developed a Plan B.
In my opinion, they lost control when they let the CIA raise a hew and cry about President Bush's attribution, in his own State of the Union Address, of the Niger story to British intelligence (his statement, that British intelligence believes that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger, was and remains accurate -- regardless of the CIA's own position on Iraq's efforts in Niger).
It seems to me that the President ought to have final say over his own statements in the State of the Union address, and when he surrendered this he showed a kind of Presidential weakness not seen since Jimmy Carter's malaise.
The truth will come out eventually. We all need to be patient.
I think that the article at the top of this thread does what you suggest.
And yet not a statement from the administration. Could it be the NY Sun scooped the administration and all the intelligence agencies? Maybe the MSM has a hold on the administration. Maybe Bush is part of the MSM evilness so many seem to obsess about. Yeah, that's it. I am reminded of Occam's Razor in this instance. Instead of constantly reporting on wild accusations that are unprovable, implausible, and frankly insane at times, perhaps the administration was just wrong. Could that be? A Republican wrong? Never!!
I think that Occam's Razor would say that since we know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and they disappeared with no record of their destruction, therefore they were not destroyed.
Where are they, then? There was uncontroverted evidence of convoys of thousands of trucks into Syria. Again, Occam's Razor: what would they have been moving in such large quantities while the threat of US invasion loomed large? Turkish delight and pistachios? I doubt it.
Old news... Really old news... REALLY, really, really, really old news.
DEBKA reported this shortly after the end of hostilities during the Iraq War.
Syria? Perhaps Lebannon and Russia as well.
It's no longer covered in the CIA World Fact Book but I believe Syria is one of the few countries that didn't sign the Chemical Weapons treaty. There's nothing "illegal" about Syria having them. It just makes them Saddam's butt-buddy.
Old news. There should be some related news posted here from months and years ago if you are interested in it.
| Saddam's Other WMD's are in Syria: See: "David Kay, the recently resigned head of an American WMD search team in Iraq, confirmed that part of Saddam's weapons was hidden in Syria, Britain's Sunday Telegraph reported on Jan. 25, 2004. Kay said he had uncovered conclusive evidence shortly before last year's U.S. invasion." HERE Kay’s testimony was misrepresented to the public WMDs Smuggled to 3 Sites in Syria Israeli General: Saddam moved WMDs to Syria 6 weeks before the war David Kay says he has evidence of such Kay HAD Syrian WMD Maps |
Interesting Links! From what I've seen of David Kay on TV and Print, he sounded to me like he did not know or care where they went.
These are old allegations. I think it's nearing time to execute a search warrant throughout Syria. And in the meantime, we need to tap all calls originating in the US and going to Syria, without getting a warrant. And vote Hillary and Teddy out of the Senate in 2006.
IDF: Syrian army spread too thin to threaten Israel
Jerusalem Post | 12/14/5 | ARIEH O'SULLIVAN
Posted on 12/13/2005 9:05:03 PM PST by SmithL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1539988/posts
BBC: New Hariri report 'blames Syria'
BBC | Sunday, 11 December 2005, 23:03 GMT | staff
Posted on 12/11/2005 9:18:49 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1538589/posts
In Era After Arafat, Islamic Militants Are Edging Into Power
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: December 18, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/international/middleeast/18mideast.html
ping
bump
Interesting the Russian generals were photographed with Saddam’s chief of staff Izzat Ibrahim... IIRC, Izzat is the red headed general who merged his intel people with Zarqawi’s to form Al Qaeda in the Land between the rivers later a/k/a ISIS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.