So says this reader coming to my defense:
The spammers hitting you over the report clearly have not read it,
or are just spouting talking points. If you dig in to the report,
you find that:
(1) Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD programs as soon
as the sanctions were gone. The nuclear scientists were there, the
biological lab people were there, much of the infrastructure
was intact, or in pieces and hidden securely away.
(2) The sanctions were eroding as early as 1999, and likely would
not have lasted much longer.
(3) Massive bribery of government people in France and other countries,
including parts of Chirac’s inner circle, was the reason for (2).
(4) Bribery of _journalists_ ensured coverage of the sanctions was
slanted in the way Saddam wanted it. I wonder why the MSM does not
want to highlight this part, eh?
(5) The money for the bribes in (3) and (4) came right out of the
oil-for-food program. Wonder why the MSM does not want to highlight
Folks, you really need to stop relying on the same people who are
calling Dan Rather a journalist for information on this scandal.
The pajamadheen are on this…little green footballs has info,
Clayton Cramer has been reading and posting impressive facts
and I’m sure there are others.
Now as to Bremer’s comments: as I read them, he was addressing the
issue of security in Baghdad right after the collapse of resistance.
The 3rd InfDiv was spread out all over the place and did not have
nearly enough troops to guard everything that needed guarding.
The 4th InfDiv was supposed to be there as well, arriving from the
north, but they were instead (ahem) “elsewhere”, because Turkey
decided that the US had not passed its version of the “global test”
and refused to allow 4th ID to transit its territory.
Thus Bremer’s remarks are telling with regard to the Kerry
Doctrine, NOT with regard to the Bush Doctrine.