Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (112722)	8/25/2003 1:19:37 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

newsday.com

To: JohnM who wrote (112722)	8/25/2003 4:53:34 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<Definitely puzzling.> My guess is, the decision-makers thought our troops would be stumbling over hundreds of WMD (after being shelled with chemical weapons as they approached Baghdad), so the evidence for WMD would be obvious and overwhelming, and there would be no need to search for it. Also, they thought the Iraqi police would stay on the job, take orders from our soldiers, and maintain order, so there was no need to assign our soldiers to guard anything. They thought, once they pulled down that statue, they were done, and Operation Iraqi Freedom was finished. That's the best guess I can come up with, for why they didn't guard the WMD documents, or the nuclear sites, or do any post-war planning.