"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...


Why bother with appearances, when the entire plan was designed with
absolutely no consideration for our image in the world?

Because the administration gave the French and Russians a chance to
atone for their sins of sending banned arms to Saddam. As the
Oil-for-food scandal unfurled, it became evident that neither of those
two countries would have budged and inch no matter what we negotiated.

I don't buy it, but that's just how I am.



So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted
them gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons.
I'll admit there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to
be smuggled out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops.
But, since your president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt
he really cared much whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or
biological weapons.

I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping
Saddam sneak the WMD from his country to Syria.

Oh boy. You think there were frightening numbers of Russian soldiers
waiting for us?

No. And I never said that. But there were plenty of Russian soldiers
elsewhere in the world that we didn't want to drag into our fight in
Iraq.

Time out. If, theoretically, president Rove actually knew which trucks
were hauling stuff out of Iraq

You mean Russian trucks?
Don't you remember the report of us hitting a Russian convoy heading to
Syria (under the guise of a Diplomatic envoy)
just a few weeks after the invasion started?

If not, here is the report:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...nvoy.attacked/



We claimed that we had no forces in the area (special-ops always operates
that way), yet Condi Rice made
an emergency trip to Moscow the next day to smooth things over:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7133-3.cfm
(You can bet she was armed with "proof" of Russian involvement in the
evacuation of Iraqi WMD-related material and technology.)

The administration obviously worked out a deal with the Russians. They'd
shut up about US future involvement in Iraq (ironically, Putin
practically endorsed Bush right before the election), and we'd keep lids
on the evidence that we had accumulated.

It was working very well, until John A. Shaw spilled the beans right
before the election:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2637-6257r.htm

At the time that that story was released, the White House did not condone
(but did not criticize) Shaw, because the story was valuable for Bush's
re-election bid. But not long after the election, Shaw was
dismissed...most likely because the truth that he was spreading was
interfering with our on-going negotiations with the Russians regarding
their planned shipment of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria.
http://www.jeffbrokaw.net/notes/2005...ced-to-resign/

Do you think Putin wouldn't have seen any further "investigations" as
simply the cost of doing business? He was a spook, you know. Still is.

Which means he knows how to cut a deal.