WMDs found by Election??

Do any of you feel that "WMDs" will found right before the election? We know they aren't there but maybe the US will go as low to plant fake ones to help Bush win and gain more support.

Though, if they wanted to, they would have done that by now.

"We know they aren't there but maybe the US will go as low to plant fake ones to help Bush win and gain more support. "

at least it will make alot of people shutup and begin to think about what really matters - the iraqi people and the current state of iraqs economy etc

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by GeniusSage]

I don't want to sound like some glorifier of the Republican president, because I'm not...

Now that I've stated my disclaimer here's what I have heard from extremely reliable sources - and if you review any of my previous posts you'll see I am not one to just pass along rumors.

According to sources in both Special Forces and USAF intelligence, WMD's by the metric tons have indeed been found and are continuing to be found - (not planted).
The findings are being kept secret and I suspect they will be released at a politically appropriate time - which tells me the release date of the information is based on 2004 election timing...

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by intelgurl]

intelgurl,

thereby proving that the most plausable story is often the truth.

Originally posted by intelgurl
I don't want to sound like some glorifier of the Republican president, because I'm not...

Now that I've stated my disclaimer here's what I have heard from extremely reliable sources - and if you review any of my previous posts you'll see I am not one to just pass along rumors.

According to sources in both Special Forces and USAF intelligence, WMD's by the metric tons have indeed been found and are continuing to be found - (not planted).
The findings are being kept secret and I suspect they will be released at a politically appropriate time - which tells me the release date of the information is based on 2004 election timing...

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by intelgurl]

Yeah, I think we talked about how this after Hussein's capture was made public. And yes, holding the information for a politically beneficial time is definitely something I can see happening.

Remember that Bush II is trying to avoid the problems his father ran into for his re-election campaign. There wasn't anything positive for Bush I to use from Desert Storm by the time the elections rolled around. By dragging this out, I'm sure they're hoping to keep the positive news coming for his campaign. "What have you done for me lately" is the theme song for politics, after all.

There is annother side to this story too,

the more the democrats keep pounding on the lack of WMD's as the entire justification of the war in Iraq, the more they are being setup for a major fall if they do materialize in future.

I don't know who advises the Democrats but political strategy is not their strength that is for sure.

I dont think it really matters if Saddam had weapons or not.The longer it takes to find them just means that they werent as much of an imminent threat as we were told. In actuality all that is being found is the fact that Saddams weapons were no threat to the U.S. at all.
I think this president needs more than some weapons turning up to save his presidency.That doesnt mean he wont be re-elected. This country has a lot of stupid people in it and he probably will cheat again anyways.
I dont think the country can stand another four years of the war party being in charge though.

Weapons+intent+means to use them= threat

that is what I think.

Having weapons is not reason enough. I have weapons,but that doesnt mean you can invade my house,kill my children and try to set up a new head of my houshold.
Intent needs to be proven and i dont think that will happen.

Means...none of these weapons(if found)will be of much significance. I doubt they could reach the U.S anyways.

Originally posted by TheDemonHunter

Yeah, I think we talked about how this after Hussein's capture was made public. And yes, holding the information for a politically beneficial time is definitely something I can see happening.

Yes and I posted something like this as my rationale:

Looking into the history of the current president's father's administration - He won the Persian Gulf war, had resounding popular support but it faded just in time for the election - enter the Clinton administration.

Now if Bush Jr were to go to any political analyst and ask what could be learned from his father's presidency and subsequent election loss - any political science buff would tell him;
it's all about timing to insure high popularity at the time of the vote...

I belive that we have Bin Laden in custody and his "Capture" will be announced about a month prior to the election to sway anyone over to his side.

By the way, I would not want to run for The President Of The United States, I see it as having a BIG ASS shovel to clean up the mess GW has crapped all over the place. I see it as more of a waste of time and money, cause by the time you clean up his S**T your term will probably be over, and by that time Al Gore might see it as an easy way into The White House.
I Dunno

If there are WMD's and if they have always been there (ie not planted), then we have to ask 'Where did Saddam get them from ?' Russia possibly, but we already know that the US Govt kindly gave him various weapons to use during the Iran-Iraq war.

And yes, if they do exist (planted or not), they will be trundled out before the next election. However, I don't think that will be enough to get Bush re-elected. But another attack on US soil would do it, Iraqui WMD's or not.

Why would any administration so hell-bent on invading Iraq over the cause of WMD purposefully hold off such an announcement and make it appear as though there were none? There were certainly none that were capable of being an immediately launchable threat towards the United States. This has gone on too long for me to think that there will be anything found that wasn't planted. The current administration would not have allowed this to go on this long to cause so much doubt. Nothing is there and we've all found out too late to change it.

Why wouldn't they plant WMD? I don't think they're going to as they don't need to. U.S. power is certainly absolute and as such, evidence doesn't even need to be planted to create any sort of justification.

Originally posted by intelgurl
Now that I've stated my disclaimer here's what I have heard from extremely reliable sources - and if you review any of my previous posts you'll see I am not one to just pass along rumors.

According to sources in both Special Forces and USAF intelligence, WMD's by the metric tons have indeed been found and are continuing to be found - (not planted).

Intelgurl, not to sound skeptical, but are your sources the same type of intelligence that gave us the evidence to start the invasion? Colin Powell was giving us all a lot of this same type of stuff before the invasion happened and it still hasn't panned out. I'm not sure if a message board user such as yourself would have any better information than our current Secretary of State.

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by heelstone]

Originally posted by heelstone
Intelgurl, not to sound skeptical, but are your sources the same type of intelligence that gave us the evidence to start the invasion? Colin Powell was giving us all a lot of this same type of stuff before the invasion happened and it still hasn't panned out. I'm not sure if a message board user such as yourself would have any better information than our current Secretary of State.

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by heelstone]

Well put Heelstone - after all what could I possibly know...
I am only making the suggestion that WMD's have been located and that their presence will be revealed at a politically appropriate time...

I am completely baffled how you could think that the presence of WMD's in any way conflicts with Secretary of State Colin Powell?
I don't recall Powell recanting his assertion that Saddam had WMD's stockpiled...
And even if he did, that would only be the ...what? 12th time what he has said was in direct conflict with what Bush or Rumsfeld has said...

But you're so right, what could some lower level officers that I am acquainted with, who've been in Iraq know that the media does not?

... even Madeline Albright has suggested similarly, although she was refering to Osama and not WMD's (she later recanted the statement - obviously she couldn't prove it but it showed her gut feeling on the matter) - the media has even suggested that Saddam had been kept on "ice" too in much the same way...

Anyone remember reading about the Iran-Contra affair in your history books at school?

It sounds to me like a politically timed release of information could be the administrations'/party's standard procedure on all these type of events...

I'm a patient person, I can wait until closer to election time to see if my sources are right... time will tell...



[Edited on 19-1-2004 by intelgurl]

If there are WMD's in Iraq that have been found then it is not being covered up by the British.
And as Britain controls the south of Iraq where WMD's were most likely to be deployed I find it hard to believe that it is true.

Many in the USA underestimate just how hard life is for Tony Blair right now.If he knew that there were WMD's he would say now or atleast before the Hutton Report is published in 2 weeks.He would not wait until September.

Britain's sole given reason for going to war was WMD's.Every day they are not found is a harder day to justify the war.

So if they are being hidden then they are being hidden from Britain also and I find that hard to believe considering the closeness of the military and intelligence services of the two countries in that region there today.

I'm skeptical about this.
Any revelation of a large quantity of WoMD before an election could be as damaging to the Bush administration as if they aren't found.
People are going to realise that it is an election ploy and this is also going to create major questions over any find's authenticity.
As events in Iraq have already proven: the electorate doesn't lke being played. Once that happens you lose any advantage due to the seed of doubt that has been planted.
It would be far more advantageous to disclose any finds as soon as possible. Not only would this have vindicated the US invasion and appeased their population but it would also have had direct knock on effects which would have improved the stability situation within Iraq itself. Justification for the war would have been recognised by many US opponents and damage that is irreversible, even if the US finds WoMD now, could have been avoided.
The disadvantages of revealing WoMD at election time seem to me to outweigh the advantages.

I find it far more plausible that there will be some minor revelation made, maybe in connection with Saddam or Osama Bin Laden, but the Bush administration realises that any move it makes in the run up to election will be open to the utmost scrutiny and that their motives will be put under the spotlight.

John Bull and Leveller...
Both of you have excellent points.
Certainly time will tell~