Replies

I have had the weirdest sense for a couple of weeks now that in fact we are FINDING THIS STUFF, BUT CONCEALING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE FOUND IT. I don't know why they would do this, except, possibly, to let the Dems/libs "step in it" again and let the "Where's the weapons of mass destruction?" chant get full voice before springing a boatload of evidence on these people.

Like I say--just a weird feeling.

Putting a little pressure on the weasels b4 coming clean....

Well of course that's what they are doing or at least should be doing.

Think about it. If you were interviewing high ranking Iraqi leaders and scientists one on one over an extended period and expected to get new high level "recruits" into this process would you want to let on to the new folks what you knew to be true and what you knew to be the storyline?

Given the large number of interviews that must have taken place by now the CIA and the military probably have a good idea where the truth lies, who is telling the truth and who is not. I wouldn't divulge any of this until I knew I had milked the system for all it is worth.

For example: assume that filtering the lies from the truth leads you to believe that at least some of the WMDs managed to get into terrorist hands. Would you tell the world before you had gathered all the intelligence you could to help you locate them? I don't think so.

OTOH once you find a real cache of the real stuff or verifiable proof that at least some were destroyed late in the game (a likelihood in my opinion) then that info is very likely to be released, much to the embarrassment of the libs currently attacking the Administration.

A little birdy told me this story: Says Carl Rove to W: "Good news closer to the election is good for our side and bad for the Dems. Time is on our side. Let the libs dig themselves in a little deeper and we will lay it all out for the American people and the world when the time is just right."

My recommendation: Patience.