From: Adam Flinton 

Steve Ewing wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:52:03 -0500, John Cuccia 
> wrote:
>
>> You don't know that.  As a matter of fact, most evidence points to the
>> fact that it was indeed there when US troops arrived.
>
>
> This is an indication of conflicting spins.  The first reaction-- see
> Scott McLellan's briefings-- was that we "just found out about
it", and
> the Pentagon was all over investigating it.  And Condi told the
> President,  right before she went out on her non-campaign-related
> speaking tour (who's  garding the fort against those election-day
> threats, Condi?).
>
> Now the story is (or was, before the most recent debunkings) that we
> knew  it was gone since April 2003.  Which is it?  And if we knew, why
> didn't we  inform the IAEA?  And how could we miss the convoy, given the
> massive  effort to haul this stuff away when we presumably had the area
> blanketed  with reconnaisance?
>

Heh.

There are 2 views on that....

A) That they thought there were WMD & thus indeed one would have
thought that the various known/suspect WMD sites would/should have been
under heavy & sustained surveillance via "technical means".
Imagine if these explosives had been sent out with a old nuke material
"overcoat"....gosh...you'd think they'd be looking for nefarious
activity such as that...

B) That they knew that there weren't any WMD so what's the point wasting
valuable surveillance assets on watching some old warehouses.




Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5