Reply #42: One of the better objections to this theory, and my answer to it.

[Peace Patriot]

(Also a cross-post...)

Here's a good objection that has come up, re: the WMD-planting theory of Treasongate. The Raw Story article gets into it, at the end:

"The source said intelligence officers understood quickly what they were being asked to do and that the assumption was they were being asked to provide WMD in order for coalition forces to find them.

“'But the guys were thinking this is absurd because anything put down would not pass the smell test and could be shown to be not of Iraqi origin and not using Iraqi methodology,' the source added.

"Former and current US intelligence officers explain that such forensics is essential and would have in fact proved if a weapons stash found was using Iraqi methodology.

“'A good example of how forensics is used can be found in the recent development around enriched uranium isotopes found on centrifuges in Iran,' one said. “'ran claimed to have purchased the centrifuges from Pakistan, but certain people pushing for war with Iraq were claiming that this was evidence of Iraqis reconstituting their nuclear weapons program. The forensics showed that the Iranians were telling the truth and that they in fact had purchased the items from Pakistan, a US ally.”

------------------------

It's true that nuke materials have signatures, as do nuke weapons programs, but consider this:

1. Would un-bribable, un-threatenable, truly independent experts ever have been let near that evidence? (Keep in mind that the Bushites forced the UN weapons inspectors out of the country.)

2. Is it not possible that Manucher Ghorbanifar (life-long dealer in illicit weapons in the Middle East), perhaps in cahoots with Chalabi (a double-agent with Iran) could have procured nukes or other WMDs that could pass the "smell test"?

3. Since when did having bad evidence ever stop the Bushites from claiming things--and getting away with the most outrageous lies? They constantly work the newsstream to make the false seem true and the true seem false. That's their M.O. They fuzz up and smear over matters of evidence and truth. And the US war profiteering corporate news monopolies give them every chance to do so. The lapdog press has gotten a little more nippy these days; keep in mind how they were THEN. The Bush Cartel could get away with ANYTHING (and still pretty much does).

I'm no expert on this. In my ignorance, it sounds like a pretty good objection to the WMD-planting theory, for a rational scientific mind. Not BushWorld.

----------------------

Re: Judith Miller. She was leading the US troops around in Iraq, pointing them here and there, and threatening them with her Pentagon connections when they wouldn't do things her way. She became a real annoyance to the commanders in the field. And if you presume that she was in on the WMD-planting scheme, and knew where (or approx where) the phony stuff was going to be, it all starts to make sense.

Also, if you backtrack and realize that all the Bushites and NeoCons and warmongers like Miller KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq (because they were all going to such trouble to manufacture the case for it, out of whole cloth), why did they purposefully prep the US public and the world for a "find"--with all this high profile "hunting" and the hype that preceded it--and the continued hype throughout the "hunt"? You'd think they would have dropped the hype the minute they set foot in Iraq. Instead, they went on with it all spring/early summer, I think in the continued expectation that one of their WMD-planting efforts would pan out.

It's kind of like election fraud. When you see how the Bushites set up our election system, with Bushite corporations owning and controlling the vote tabulation with "trade secret," proprietary programming code, and virtually no audit/recount controls, and $4 billion from a Bushite Congress to bribe the states to convert to expensive electronic systems on a crash-course basis (insecure, hackable machines that election officials don't really know much about), you gotta figure they did all that for a REASON. If they had wanted a transparent election in 2004, we would have had one. It's not rocket science. So, they went to all this trouble to create a NON-transparent election system so that maybe Kerry could get elected? I don't think that was ever a possibility.

Same thing with their capabilities in Iraq. If they set it up to lie, cheat and steal, they WILL. If they bring the entire US military machine down upon a near-defenseless Iraq, and bomb tens of thousands of innocents, and come in and immediately set up torture prisons, and permit widespread chaos and looting so that no one knows what is going on, and if they're dealing with illicit characters like Chalabi and Ghorbanifar--in short, if they set up conditions so that they CAN slip WMDs in and plant them, they WILL. Or they will try to.

That's not to say they DID. It's just to say that Bushite lying, cheating and stealing is a reasonable beginning hypothesis for a number of inexplicable events, and that, in this case--as with election fraud--the more evidence that emerges, the more likely it becomes that that's what they did--they tried to plant the weapons, they got foiled, and Treasongate is the coverup.