Why didn't Bush plant WMD evidence?

[Goldom]

In Iraq? From the very beginning I was sure that WMDs would mysteriously turn up after being placed there by the administration, to look good. Whyever didn't they? Tried to but failed? Are going to but waiting for closer to election?

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. The discussed it but

decided that there are actually good and decent people in the world and someone would tattle. (it's true!)

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Here's a link on that story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3158376/

[Terwilliger]

3. Too easy to check and debunk

hard to have a new looking missile or chemical canister and then say it was from stuff Saddam got back in the mid 1980's

[ugarte]

4. Too risky to actually plant things

But I fully expect that as we get closer to Novemeber some compliant Iraqi collaborator will surface and offer eyewitness testimony about moving the WMD into Syria.

[DemNoir]

5. Everyone loves a conspiracy story

I don't think a conspiracy on the scale of what would be needed here is possible.

[leftofthedial]

6. tried early but failed

then it got too late, with too many eyes watching and too little security on the ground.

Plus, it would have been difficult to plant anything of the correct vintage that didn't have "Made In USA" and "A Product of Reagan-Bush-cheney-Rumsfeld" stamped all over it.

Plus, they are incapable of executing anythin except PR and that only when the media are behaving like the lapdog whores they have been for the past generation.

[radwriter0555]

7. Because US Military personnel would have been required, & they're HONEST

unlike the nefarious members of the bush regime.

It would have required a massive collaboration and SOMEONE would have either objected or talked.

[ComerPerro]

8. Who is gonna do it? The CIA?

The same CIA from which he leaked the name of an agent?

The same CIA that he is blaming for the Iraq War lies AND 9/11?


I would hope not.

[Az]

9. This goes to the core problem with Conspiracy theories

The more people you involve the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. Who could they get to move all the weapons they would need to plant to convince the US people that there were WMDs there. They would have to be individuals beyond reproach. Completely signed on to the notion of lying to kill people. You cannot find a large enough group that you can trust enough to actuate this sort of thing.

This is why real conspiracies are much smaller in scope. They involve key people in specific functions. They can manipulate things to an extent but they cannot control them. This is where Conspiracy theorists part ways. They believe that someone somewhere is in control of everything that happens. It is not dissimilar to some religious beliefs.

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. Yes

"This is why real conspiracies are much smaller in scope. They involve key people in specific functions. They can manipulate things to an extent but they cannot control them. "

And the PNAC business plan model has been quite successful with this.

[proud patriot]

11. Because no one would do it for them

bushco would of had to plant it with their own hands

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. The regime does not have to produce evidence to back its decrees

You are with us, or you are against us. As the noted internationalist Britney Spears said, "We should just trust our President."

[JackRiddler]

14. truest explanation

However, here is an old post that also explains the problem:

--------

Once had the pleasure of discussing this issue with none other than Scott Ritter. He pointed out the difficulties in planting WMDs.

WMDs have signatures that can be tracked back. Radioactive materials have half-lives. Chemical weapons change as they age; there is no way to fake this.

The Iraqi WMD programs of old are extremely well-documented. The material flows have been tracked, the actual capabilities at various times in the 1990s are known.

Anyone planning to plant WMDs is left with two options.

A. They could say they discovered them and then refuse to turn them over to an independent agency for verification. No one believes it, especially not in the current atmosphere.

B. They could turn over the planted WMDs to an independent agency, but because of the chemical and physical signatures fakes are almost certain to be discovered. (E.g., there is no way, in 2002 or 2003, to create sarin gas that can fool neutral testers into concluding it was manufactured several years ago using Iraqi methods...)

Ritter therefore concluded that the administration would simply do what it is already doing: Constantly insinuate that WMDs have been found. Headlines blare. The later retractions are barely noticed. In the end, if this strategy works, (semi-faked) polls show that 2/3 of Americans believe WMDs were found. This is the strategy they used to successfully create a link between Saddam and 9/11 in the American mind.

Why risk planting fake evidence that can be exposed, when all you have to do is lie through your teeth that you found real evidence, and later pretend you said nothing of the sort?

In short, the real WMD plant is a New York Times reporter named Judith Miller.

[info being]

13. The UN would have investigated any finds

How could they get authentic Iraqi weapons that are still active, etc.?