Replies

He should be pressed on the issue of WMD - by conservatives.

And my amateur suggestion is that Dubya should include the scenarios presented
by (believe it or not) Clinton Administration official Kenneth Pollack.

My simple summary of Pollack's take is that Saddam kept a "capability-based" WMD program...
new pharmceutical plants that could be rapidly re-configured to produce chem/bio
weapons and quickly loaded in artillery shells and moved to the front.

And that having a bomb dropped on his head in the opening of the campaign disrupted
any chance for Saddam to issue the order to get on with the making/distribution of these weapons.

And the US/Coalition moved so fast that the Iraqis wouldn't have time to carry out the plan.

I'm not saying this was actually what happened. But I think Pollack does make a
reasonable case for portraying the way in which Saddam had a WMD program....
but it couldn't be found -- until it would have been used.

The administration said just before the war that we were in contact with high Iraqui officials. Supposedly, it was one of these officials that refused to have WMD used thus making our invasion so rapid. Also after giving them six months dilly dallying with the UN, they had sufficient to hide them anywhere or move them elsewhere. They are most likely in the Bakka (sp?) Valley in Leabon.
This is probably why Dick Cheney wanted to go in earlier.

The capabiltiy for WMD is further backed up by the finding of a 'clean' chemical production factory being gaurded by the Iraqi Army within a fenced enclosed area. I don't think you need this kind of protection for fertilizer.

Maybe we should backtrack and find out what this 'chemical factory' really was. Sometimes you overlook the obvious.

Remember the UN inspectors didn't even know about it.