Gautum wrote- That's the name of a drill we use to sanity check ideas. It's probably at the root of my frustration over a lot of what's being discussed with regards to Iraq.
What would you have to believe to believe that the Bush Administration faked WMD evidence in order to invade Iraq? In other words, what would you have to believe in order to believe that the Administration, _knowing that Iraq had no WMDs_, invaded Iraq anyways for other reasons? Bemmzim wrote- It would not be a bad thing if the administration was honest about its intentions and motives. It seems clear that the WMD arguement was used since it was thought to be the one that would most easy to "sell" to the american public (Wolfowitz or Pearl as much as said so a few months ago). Bob wrote- But it is also `nothing short of astonishing' that the US Administration did not have a `Plan B' *already* worked out. Why the need to adapt and learn after the fact, especially when there are people in the US Army, among other places, who have experience and who can and do expect to work out `Plans B, C, and D'? Dee replies I think it is easiest to believe that the administration had a plan A that involved acting on UN Sanctions by April (recalling the rush for sanctions, etc), and that this is a Plan B. Troop build ups started in the Gulf last fall, by the time winter/spring came around the timeline was getting tight to get things rolling prior to bad weather. I think it is more likely that the WMD argument was a plan B, and it was a "plausible" argument that they felt would reveal some evidence with the least amount of grief/risk when it was all said and done. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
