Let's just say the explosives were gone by April 3rd, what then?

[skip fox]

(Not that I believe it for a moment.)

But look at how THAT fact wouldn't exonerate the administration:



1.) The Army didn't know they were gone.
2.) No one sought to find out and guard the site if not.
3.) The reason no one did so was because of poor planning an insufficient troop strength.


We needn't back off our arguments one bit!

[aquart]

1. It would mean our satellite surveillance was worthless.

It would have taken a 40-70 truck convoy to move the explosives, and it would have had to be guarded......and we missed that show?

[skypilot]

2. And Colin Powell presented...

...satellite photos of everything except these weapons bunkers to the Security Council so apparently it wasn't even on their radar. Why not?

[freedom_to_read]

3. honestly

I don't think the Senator would come out swinging on this one if he didn't have his facts down cold.

And if there were any chance at all that he was wrong, Bushco would be responding with something other than smoke and mirrors.

This was a Bush bungle, no doubt about it.

[sandnsea]

4. Oil Fields More Important

That's what it would mean. They made no plans to secure these sites because they were too busy securing oil fields.

MARCH 2003

"In a notable success, U.S. forces captured many key facilities in Iraq's southern oil fields preventing sabotage by Iraqi troops. Only a handful of wells were torched."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/21/iraq/scene/main545177.shtml