thedrifter
08-12-03, 07:34 AM
Sandbagging Retribution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by Geoff Metcalf
Aug 11, 2003
I have been talking about this on my syndicated radio program for several weeks and it is time I share it here.
I have increasingly come to believe that the Bush administration is setting up would-be /wannabe democratic presidential contenders for a crippling reality check.
My deductions are based on a few predicates:
1. Anything and everything emanating from the 87-square miles surrounded by reality of the District of Criminals before November 2004 is mitigated by the election of November 2004.
2. The Democrats (the nine declared crusaders and the two Machiavellians lingering in the shadows) have focused their ‘being’ on being ‘Anti-Bush’.
a. You ‘said’ Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but we can’t find them. Neener/neener/neener…
b. You ‘said’ Saddam was trying to buy nuke fuel from Niger. That claim was bogus. Neener/neener/neener….
3. The field of 9 Democrat wannabes continues to be pulled to the radical left.
4. Al From (founder of the Democratic Leadership Council) and other ‘moderate’ democrats continue to harp on the need to return the Dems to the more ‘centrists’ policies of the Clinton era.
5. The only two candidates who personify the ‘Clinton era’ are not yet even declared (Al Gore and Hillary Clinton).
I believe the Bush administration is sandbagging and setting up the entire Democrat field of candidates for evisceration. This is not a vain partisan hope or dream but based on significant evidence which is oddly being overlooked or ignored by the mainstream. This is particularly curious given the rationale for my conjecture has been reported by none less than NBC’s Tom Brokaw.
Back in mid-July David Kay, the Pentagon chief weapons honcho, reported uncovering what was described as a “mother lode” of documents in Iraq. The documents reportedly detail Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program. Apparently Club Saddam was anal compulsive about documenting stuff.
Kay, a former U.N. chief nuclear weapons inspector, told Tom Brokaw, “I’ve already seen enough to convince me…”
He said they had found:
Progress reports
Iraqi scientists got financial rewards for breakthroughs
Breakthroughs were reported.
There are beaucoup records
Audiotapes of interviews
Brokaw said, “According to Kay, the Iraqis seem to have kept documents on even the most damning evidence.
An estimated seven and half MILES of documents, many of them collected by U.S. military from official Iraqi buildings and others handed over by Iraqi civilians.
So if we DO have the goods on the now controversial WMD program why not release it?
I’ve heard pundits smarter and more insightful than me claim if we had proof we would be screaming it from rooftops. Maybe…..
If the administration has proof that would chill the critics and corroborate all claims of Hussein’s WMDs why not release it? And if they ARE sandbagging won’t the myriad critics throw a hissy fit accusing the administration of duplicity in withholding that information?
Notwithstanding what I presume to be the probable sandbagging there IS a perfect rationalization for waiting, and waiting, and waiting….
Reportedly a lot of this stuff is handwritten. It has to be scanned into computers, analyzed vetted etc. They ware working with translators searching for various clues, including personnel records, foreign purchases, lab results, yada-yada…
Presumably, the vetting process is needed to discount misinformation, disinformation, or other political gamesmanship.
According to Kay (especially in the wake of the harsh media and partisan criticism to date), he doesn’t want to go public with details YET. He said, "I know if we can't explain the WMD program of Iraq we lose credibility with regard to other states like Iran, Syria and North Korea,".
Okay, so if not NOW….when? And here is the kicker that ignited my cynicism.
Kay told NBC, "I think we will have a substantial body of evidence before six months,"…SIX MONTHS. Hmmmmm…that means after the New Year and only nine or ten months before the election.
All the Democrats (including the unannounced Gore and Hillary) have been and remain fixated on Bush’s inability to produce what they claim was one of he key reasons for war.
Ted Kennedy complained, “It’s a disgrace that the case for war seems to have been based on shoddy intelligence, hyped intelligence, and even false intelligence.” It is a refrain embraced by and reiterated ad nauseum by the ‘Anti-Bush’ consortium.
I have suggested previously, they are digging themselves a hole that may well become a political grave.
If, or when, the product of Kay’s work is released in January/February and clearly, completely, and unequivocally documents what the administration has claimed, you can anticipate a nuclear hissy fit to erupt from the Democrats that will inevitably become “sound and fury, signifying nothing…..”
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6345.shtml
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by Geoff Metcalf
Aug 11, 2003
I have been talking about this on my syndicated radio program for several weeks and it is time I share it here.
I have increasingly come to believe that the Bush administration is setting up would-be /wannabe democratic presidential contenders for a crippling reality check.
My deductions are based on a few predicates:
1. Anything and everything emanating from the 87-square miles surrounded by reality of the District of Criminals before November 2004 is mitigated by the election of November 2004.
2. The Democrats (the nine declared crusaders and the two Machiavellians lingering in the shadows) have focused their ‘being’ on being ‘Anti-Bush’.
a. You ‘said’ Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but we can’t find them. Neener/neener/neener…
b. You ‘said’ Saddam was trying to buy nuke fuel from Niger. That claim was bogus. Neener/neener/neener….
3. The field of 9 Democrat wannabes continues to be pulled to the radical left.
4. Al From (founder of the Democratic Leadership Council) and other ‘moderate’ democrats continue to harp on the need to return the Dems to the more ‘centrists’ policies of the Clinton era.
5. The only two candidates who personify the ‘Clinton era’ are not yet even declared (Al Gore and Hillary Clinton).
I believe the Bush administration is sandbagging and setting up the entire Democrat field of candidates for evisceration. This is not a vain partisan hope or dream but based on significant evidence which is oddly being overlooked or ignored by the mainstream. This is particularly curious given the rationale for my conjecture has been reported by none less than NBC’s Tom Brokaw.
Back in mid-July David Kay, the Pentagon chief weapons honcho, reported uncovering what was described as a “mother lode” of documents in Iraq. The documents reportedly detail Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program. Apparently Club Saddam was anal compulsive about documenting stuff.
Kay, a former U.N. chief nuclear weapons inspector, told Tom Brokaw, “I’ve already seen enough to convince me…”
He said they had found:
Progress reports
Iraqi scientists got financial rewards for breakthroughs
Breakthroughs were reported.
There are beaucoup records
Audiotapes of interviews
Brokaw said, “According to Kay, the Iraqis seem to have kept documents on even the most damning evidence.
An estimated seven and half MILES of documents, many of them collected by U.S. military from official Iraqi buildings and others handed over by Iraqi civilians.
So if we DO have the goods on the now controversial WMD program why not release it?
I’ve heard pundits smarter and more insightful than me claim if we had proof we would be screaming it from rooftops. Maybe…..
If the administration has proof that would chill the critics and corroborate all claims of Hussein’s WMDs why not release it? And if they ARE sandbagging won’t the myriad critics throw a hissy fit accusing the administration of duplicity in withholding that information?
Notwithstanding what I presume to be the probable sandbagging there IS a perfect rationalization for waiting, and waiting, and waiting….
Reportedly a lot of this stuff is handwritten. It has to be scanned into computers, analyzed vetted etc. They ware working with translators searching for various clues, including personnel records, foreign purchases, lab results, yada-yada…
Presumably, the vetting process is needed to discount misinformation, disinformation, or other political gamesmanship.
According to Kay (especially in the wake of the harsh media and partisan criticism to date), he doesn’t want to go public with details YET. He said, "I know if we can't explain the WMD program of Iraq we lose credibility with regard to other states like Iran, Syria and North Korea,".
Okay, so if not NOW….when? And here is the kicker that ignited my cynicism.
Kay told NBC, "I think we will have a substantial body of evidence before six months,"…SIX MONTHS. Hmmmmm…that means after the New Year and only nine or ten months before the election.
All the Democrats (including the unannounced Gore and Hillary) have been and remain fixated on Bush’s inability to produce what they claim was one of he key reasons for war.
Ted Kennedy complained, “It’s a disgrace that the case for war seems to have been based on shoddy intelligence, hyped intelligence, and even false intelligence.” It is a refrain embraced by and reiterated ad nauseum by the ‘Anti-Bush’ consortium.
I have suggested previously, they are digging themselves a hole that may well become a political grave.
If, or when, the product of Kay’s work is released in January/February and clearly, completely, and unequivocally documents what the administration has claimed, you can anticipate a nuclear hissy fit to erupt from the Democrats that will inevitably become “sound and fury, signifying nothing…..”
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6345.shtml
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: