First off, forgive me if this isn't a good forum to post this. I'm not presenting any evidence for anything, nor even an opinion--I'm shooting out
a concept with no factual basis, wanting to see what sticks and what doesn't. I haven't seen any other threads or discussions dealing with this,
but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to have just missed them (and I have no clue what to search for to find out.) Feel free to move it
where ever, this seemed like the best starting point though.
Most good ideas, and many more bad ones, always start with a hypothetical situation. Which ever this may be, it's no different. We know that the US
invaded Iraq on the pretense of searching for WMD's. We know the Bush administration admitted that no WMD's were found. The "what if" here, is
what if there were
WMD's, and for some reason it was deemed better to take the political nose dive instead of declaring them?
The only stumbling block I have with this idea is what could be so major that it's better to dive in the polls than to admit finding the weapons. I
forget exactly when the news was released, but according to this CNN article
the report admitting no weapons were found was released October 6th, 2004. I'm fairly sure this is the report I'm looking for, I could be wrong
though. However, at this time Bush is already in office, and it'd be a hard case to impeach him off of that, so he doesn't have much to
loose--other than public support for the war--by taking the dive. But I would think it would still be rather important to keep some vestige of a
public image up, unless there's a more pressing reason to withold the information.
That's the hypothetical situation I'm posing: there were
WMD's in Iraq, and for some reason it was deemed more important to look bad in the
public eye than release the information. Now the question remains though, what was that reason?
I'd like to see some creative (although hopefully logical) ideas by the members here. I'm not saying this is how it is, just "what if..."
Perhaps it involves further cover-up of 9/11 in some way? Maybe there was some weapons unaccounted for, and it would have (for some reason) been
easier to say none were found than only some of what should've been there were found. I know this site always wants evidence for theories, but I
would like to see some ideas thrown out--maybe everyone's looking in the wrong direction.