Sandbagging Retribution
by Geoff Metcalf
August 10, 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
.."
©
2002 Tocqevillian Magazine