Ok - why didn't * lie about WMD in Iraq like many thought he would?

[The Straight Story]

Back in the early days of the iraq war start I remember seeing many people postulate that * would plant WMD, find them, then justify his war.

Why has this not happened? It would not have been too hard to do so - whether nuclear or biological. So I am left wondering why he has not planted them to find over this time?

Is he just an idiot, a dupe, or was there really bad intel (and I would lean towards the latter as both Clinton and Gore felt there were WMD at the time)?

Any ideas?

[jayctravis]

1. Because if it was discovered, it would be an instant impeachment.

And the Republicans would never get back in for 20 years.

[seabeyond]

2. i think..... they tried. it is reported

from yes iran, but i think another source too, that they were bringing things in at night. i think because they were called on it and it was widely reported they stopped the mission. now, like with anything, because it didnt happen, it cannot be proved. but i dont think it was beyond them

[Libby2]

3. I read somewhere that they tried too

but that they actually got to Baghdad much quicker than they thought they would.

[Child_Of_Isis]

4. He knew he didn't have to.

The masses are so easily manipulated, why even bother?

[SalmonChantedEvening]

10. Exactly.

He went from WMD to WMDPRA over a weekend and they she bleated even louder.

Who needs evidence when fantasy works?

[The Traveler]

5. Sure, he could have done that

but that would have taken the involvement of a lot of people, and cooperation from the military. Not likely you could pull that off without someone blowing the whistle. Most military officers take their oaths quite seriously, ya know.

But, yeah, intelligence overestimated the threat. Yet, even so, the general consensus was that Sadaam was deterable. Invasion and occupation was not required to manage the level of threat Iraq presented.

[dweller]

6. 1. Plame

2. he didn't need it afterall, he got his goddamned war anyway.


3. ...awaiting Fitzgerald ...

dp

[Amonester]

7. I don't know if the UN inspectors (Mr. Blix & Co) would have

had to "certify" their "country of origin" and "manufacturer" and "date of making" and... If so, then the "automatic impeachments" deterrent would be the reason why...

What else "reason" could it be?

:yoiks:

[msu2ba]

8. He wouldn't have needed to.....

....if the occupation had gone as easily as the original invasion. He would've just pinned medals on everything in sight, the RW would think he was a great warrior, and he could move on to the next invasion.

[Stirk]

9. I remember reading an article in either the NYT or the Washington Post,

about a year ago which hit on just this subject in a subtle way. I remember there was an "administration official" who casually offered that the possibility had often been discussed amongst the senior staff. He/she said everyone knew the risk of being caught was very high, and so no one was willing to go through with it.

In other words, it was cowardice- not morality- which stopped them.

I'm sorry I don't have the link anymore. It was an interesting piece.

[ktowntennesseedem]

11. He is an idiot, but I chalk it up to selective intelligence.

No one could say for sure whether or not Saddam had any WMD's or not. And there was intelligence that pointed both ways; depending on who you talked you, Saddam either had the greatest arsenal in history or he had nothing. Now we have all heard this administration proclaim that they did not lie, but had faulty intelligence (a defense made sweeter by the fact that they can blame Clinton for that bad intelligence). But anyone with an ounce of sense knows thats not the complete story.

A truly objective, unbiased look at that intelligence would lead you to consider all of it, and conclude that Saddam MIGHT have some WMD's, in which case you would approach with caution and send in inspectors to research and better clarify your intelligence. (Which, if I remember correctly, was exactly what we WERE doing before Mr. Bring-Em-On took over.) Did this administration lie to us about the WMD situation. In a literal sense, no, but what they DID do is just as bad. They already decided that Saddam needed to be taken out, so they were merely looking for intelligence to support them, and likewise ignored intelligence which conflicted with their pre-determined views. Which is why they never planted any fake WMD's; the intelligence they chose to accept convinced them they would find WMD's, and their stubbornness prevented them from ever considering they might have been wrong.

Whether or not you call it a lie, the outcome is just as terrible, and their actions are just as damning.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. Risk outweighed reward is my guess. Such a conspiracy would

involve too many people who could talk. Perceived benefits not worth the instant, ruinous controversy that would arise with discovery.

[NNN0LHI]

13. High resolution spy satellites. Everybody has access to them these days

Yep.

Don

[Postman]

14. They thought conquering Iraq would be an easy win..

and who would care about WMD's at that point, when we had an easy victory in Iraq?

It was a gross mis-calculation and they should be in prison for it.

[AuntPatsy]

15. More than likely because we gave them WMDS at one time

to sue against Iran, it is no secret you know, I assume they didn't believe them all gone...

And your point of this observation is since such is very well known?