"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message |
| Do you recall the context?

It was a report from an analyst who is involved in looking for WMD.

Thank you. I'd be more trusting of a UN analyst looking for WMD, than
I would of a US analyst for obvous reasons.


It is credible to me because from the very beginning of the war military
authorities have been saying that captured personnel were "cooperating" in
the search for WMD. They probably did believe that other commanders had WMD.
Then the interrogation team would go to those commanders who would say, "No,
we had no WMD in our unit, but so-and-so had them."

Had I been captured, I would have cooperated too. If indeed Saddam
Hussein was bluffing it obviously backfired. But the simplest
explanation consistant with observed fact remains that the Declaration
in the Fall of 2002 was reasonably accurate.


They all believed that Iraq had WMD, but that these weapons were all
assigned to some other unit. Of course, all these commanders may not have
been lied to by Saddam, but they simply believed the photos and other stuff
presented by Colin Powell at the UN. Then we are left with the question of
why Saddam seems to have gone to such great lengths to appear to be hiding
WMD when in fact he had none.

Or maybe he really did have WMD, but had no chance to deploy them since they
were all hidden away in inaccessible places. They could have been buried
deep in the sand like the Iraqi Air Force, the location known only to a few,
and those few either dead or in hiding. In that event looking for WMD will
be a lot like looking for the Lost Dutchman mine, the object of treasure
hunters and book authors for centuries to come.

Unlike the lost Dutchman's treasure, WMDs rapidly deterioate to
uselessness. Only mustard gas is long lived and it WAS all
accounted for, save for a trivial amount (some 500 shells).
Any weapon stocks dating back to 1991 would be useless by now and
a liability.

--

FF