If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated)

Right Wing News ^ | June 19, 2003 | John Hawkins

[VRWC_minion]

How long do you feel is reasonable for them to have had time to produce any of the vast stockpiles believed to exist? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years?

After the trial. Assuming we have trials for Iraqi's the proper time and place for releasing all information is at the trial or at the latest after the trial.

How long would it take for you to begin to be more skeptical that they are going to find anything at all?

About 1 year. Given the amount of debriefing/interrogation going on, this stuff should be turning up.

I agree and some of the larger hard to hide stuff is being released simply because the vehicles etc are too large to hide from the press.

If there were a big find, I don't believe the administration would keep it completely under wraps.

Assuming big means proof without doubt, I disagree. Such a release will compromise on going investigations. It will even put some of the folks and their familes at risk if its obvious who is doing the disclosing.

The political value (for Blair as well) of finding anything at all at this point is tremendous,

Yes of course. Its extremely important for the credibility of both politicians and especially important when we make future acqusations.

and they would need to publicize some of it.

But timing is everything. If they are certain they will have definite proof then there is no need to rush. In fact the critics will ignore other potential critisims and put their critical mass on a point that will easily be proven wrong. The smart thing for them to do is to wait at least until all the critics reach critical mass on this point. When they do the release of such information proving WMD will once and for all end the critics. Think of poker. If you have a winnning hand there is no need to make your opponent think you are holding a royal flush. However if you only have a pair you might want to hint to your opponent you have a good hand. Blair and Bush are acting like they have a royal flush.

As for Blair, he is already on record stating that the information regarding WMD will be reported fully and not piecemeal.

[jt318]

I find it amusing how we rate Saddam's honesty dependent on what we want to accomplish... Re: "Saddam can't be trusted to tell us the truth about the weapons" (circa 2002) vs. "The WMDs must be there because Saddam claimed they were" (circa 5 minutes ago)!

Ding, Ding, Ding. There's my logic alarm going off. It can't be both!

I have a sneaking suspicion that Hussein (why do we refer to him by his first name?), probably worried about an invasion/retribution from Iran (our old enemies, remember?) if he said "Yea, no weapons here!"

[RinaseaofDs]

Saddam admitted he had the weapons, and now they are gone. WMD's exist, we just don't know where. GWB didn't lie to us.