The chances that Chimpco will plant WMD in Iraq. Need hard numbers.

[The Night Owl]

What are the chances that Chimpco will plant WMD in Iraq? 0%? 25%? 50%? 75%? 100%?

Also, do the chances that Chimpco will plant WMD increase as Democrats and the media put pressure on Chimpco to explain the apparent lack of WMD in Iraq?

[burythehatchet]

1. 0%

too late

[Racenut20]

2. Giving the rap to the CIA

Could very easily lead to the CIA to plant something to cover their own a**. That was my first instinct when I saw the WH blaming them again.

[aquart]

3. We're not in control of Iraq.

Bringing in WMD of any kind would mean putting it into the hands of the freedom fighters.

Who might use it to kill us and take control of their own oil.

I really, really, really doubt we intend to risk that.

Don't you?

Not to mention, how very much it would smell. Every other recent Bush stunt has been exploded almost immediately. The troops who would have to move this stuff are not BushCo friendly. They would talk in the next email.

[mulethree]

8. so

So you have haliburton sneak it in there and "discover it" under some infrastructure project. The stuff is usually 2 parts that get mixed only when you are ready to use it, so you find some of Part A and just traces of part B.

Anthrax occurs naturally in sheep and camels, just find some outbreak, encourage it a little, and presto- you now have evidence that biological weapons must have been hidden in the vicinity.

So, I can only guess they haven't found a way to do it that would stand up to outside-expert scrutiny. And haven't found a politically feasible way of avoiding the scrutiny.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi mulethree!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[madrchsod]

4. 0%

too late in the game

[RapidCreek]

5. They were planted before the war

...that's always been my contention. To be found when it's most convenient. Think about it. It'll vindicate the CIA, who has obviously agreed to be the fall guy and Bush, who we'll come to understand must have been privy to super secret intelligence even the CIA didn't have, intelligence he boldly and heroically acted upon.

Why else would Bush have been in such a hurry to get rid of the UN inspectors? Why else would Bush and Rumsfeld have needed to create their own "intelligence" gathering apparatus? Why would this apparatus consistently claim to have evidence of Iraq's WMD possession, evidence they have consistently insisted they could not release to the UN for National Security Reasons even after we control Iraq?

The WMD's discovery will cement in the mids of most Americans the acceptance that Big Brother really is omnipotent and should be trusted without exception.

RC

[buycitgo]

7. that makes perfect sense.......perfect!

remember all the stories about Delta Force (or whatever) troops being infiltrated long before hostilities began?

would they be bringing IN some chem/bio weapons?

And, regardless of whether they were planted before the invasion:

They'll do it in October, close enough before the election to obviate the possibility of determing whether or not they were planted or not. Once it's been trumpeted that they were found, like the incubator babies in Kuwait, the TRUTH won't matter to them.

It NEVER, ever does; the important thing is to make the statement. Nobody pays attention to the retraction.

Christ, dumbo got PISSED at Dianne Sawyer when she had the temerity to press him on what happened to the WMDs.....he said, "IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!"

when is THAT clip going to be shown 1000 times, like the Deanscream?

[nostamj]

6. 0%

anything planted could be proven to be planted. chemical markers, etc.

besides, the WORLD would collectively roll their eyes at this late late point in the game.

[buycitgo]

9. you're right, but if you check my post above, you'll see why they'll do it

they don't CARE about what the world thinks, and they don't CARE whether it can be proven/disproven in the short run, all they CARE about is the election.

the MEDIA will also unquestioningly repeat everything they say, as usual, and by the time the truth is revealed(if ever), as scumbo himself said, "It doesn't MATTER!!!!"

[JackRiddler]

10. ...as good as zero...

I've had this explained to me by no less an authority than Scott Ritter, former Chief Weapons Inspector of the UN. As such, and as an honest man, he was the only one who knew what the hell he was talking about and saying it openly before and after the Iraq invasion.

Recommend his documentary: In Shifting Sands.

The Iraqi weapons program was investigated for many years starting in 1991. The UN inspectors knew where nearly all materials had come from, how they were processed, where they went. They often caught the regime lying early on and found various ways to confirm the truth. The Iraqi regime itself destroyed its bioweapons program before 1993 (in an effort to coverup they had ever had one). The UN destroyed the rest by 1995. Given the fallibility of paper records, they could definitively confirm only about 95 percent of stockpiles as destroyed. But they definitively knew there was no remaining infrastructure, no programs, no materials for new WMD, no "program activities." That was the situation by 1998, when the U.S. was under pressure to remove sanctions. They demanded that Ritter manufacture a provocation to allow a US/UK bombing of Iraq. Ritter resigned. Clinton ordered the Dec. 1998 Desert Fox "impeachment" bombings (ordering withdrawal of the inspectors just beforehand).

The next round of inspections under Blix, forced in 2003, confirmed there was no new infrastructure. Any stockpiles unaccounted for (the 5 percent) would have lost their potency by then.

You can't plant bio or chem weapons because they have signatures that indicate original process of creation and then change over time. These are distinctive and cannot be faked. Unless the CIA had the foresight to plant stockpiles of chemical weapons made in the Iraqi style back in 1999, so that they could convincingly age in time for their discovery in 2004.

Ritter predicted that the U.S. would simply pretend every few days to have discovered something. (So far, all of his predictions relating to Iraq have proven true, because based on the real info.) He said this would be trumpeted every time it happened, whereas the later retraction would largely go unnoticed. (Most recently we had the "leaking containers" last week, if you remember.) In the end, as a result of this insinuation campaign, many Americans would simply think WMDs were discovered in Iraq, even though they weren't, much in the same way they think Iraq was behind 9/11.

And this is exactly what happened.

Thus the most important WMD planted by the U.S. regime in Iraq is a New York Times reporter named Judith Miller.