Jay_Corvid (jay_corvid) wrote,

WMD to be explained?

It has occurred to me that at some point Bush will have to explain the lack of WMD's in Iraq. While everyone seems to have written off the possibility that the WMD's will be located, you still occasionally hear from the Bush administration that "they may still be found in Iraq." However, by my way of thinking, the ongoing race for the Presidency will again put focus on the purpose of the war, and whether there was any need for it especially if it continues to go poorly. As Bush has yet to make anyone accountable for the lack of accurate intelligence, I am forced to assume that they are going to continue avoiding this approach as the election nears. Instead, my guess is that they are instead busy doing leg work to "find out where the WMD's went."

This administration is not keen on admitting that it was wrong, and even though they take advantage of the occasional fall guy (like blaming the intelligence failures on the rest of the world), they would much prefer to come up with other plausible, even if unprovable, explanations that would in some way vindicate them entirely.

So I would expect that sometime between now and September we will hear a story about how we have "proof" that the WMD's are in Syria, Iran, or somewhere else. Satellite imagery will be leaked to the press that shows trucks rolling across a border or some big holes in the ground somewhere. Now, these pictures won't show WMD's but they will allow the Administration to say "These trucks were dumping WMD's in those holes," with no real way to refute it. Without invading, the target country (be it Syria, Iran, NK, etc) we will have no way of saying that this didn't actually happen, but will allow Bush to give his on-the-fence supporters something to latch onto.

The only thing better than that would be for Bush to find a way to be able to implicate the U.N., France or Hans Blix in the process. By doing so, he could not only toss out an explanation to the WMD's, but also cast doubt on those who stood against him.

And if this does happen, my questions are going to be, "where have those pictures been for the past year, and when are we invading Syria (or wherever we are going to say the WMD's are)?" They will of course say that we can't invade right now and that we will take other measures to control the WMD's. Of course, then my question will be, "When did we come up with other measures for controlling WMD'S? I thought we invaded Iraq because that was the only option???"

I may be wrong, and I'm taking a sizable risk by tossing this prediction out there, but I'm feeling pretty good about it. And why would now be the first time I've ever been wrong. Play the odds people, go with me on this one. But if you don't agree, be sure to reply now so that I can know who I need to laugh at when I'm shown to be correct.

Jay Corvid
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.