# Will this be the "Big Bang" September disclosure on Iraqi Weapons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259 "2003-08-28T19:57:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/141 "2003-09-16T14:57:59Z")
Speaking of Dick Cheney, here’s [what Cheney had to say](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60116-2003Sep11.html) about regime change in Iraq back in 1992: > [@](#): > > “You’re faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq. Is it going to be a Kurdish government or a Sh’ia government or a Sunni government? How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up, how many casualties are you going to take through the course of the operation?” Makes sense to me. But he’s sure singing a different tune now. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/142 "2003-09-16T16:13:14Z")
Looks like they floated the “delay the report” trial balloon in England, it didn’t take, so they’re going to release a weak report and try to spin it over here. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/143 "2003-09-16T17:01:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > The military today has produced a report grading itself. It tends to agree with me that the war itself went well, and it acknowledges problems in the aftermath. > > Oddly, it blames the latter on the former. Things went so well in the warfare that we were not yet ready for the reconstruction when the time came. What a bunch of hooey. The whole frickin’ _world_ was expecting a quick war. They should have had their postwar plans together before the first shot was fired in anger, just in case they were as good as advertised. If the ground war had taken two months, would the extra five weeks of planning time have solved the postwar problems? Do you really _believe_ that?? > [@](#): > > Again, I expect there to be problems. The criticism that things could be a lot better and could have been handled better is a valid one. > > But, I don’t think that’s an indictment. I think it’s a fact that simply needs to be dealt with. The problem isn’t that there are problems. The problem is that we didn’t really expect them; our leaders believed their hired informant (Chalabi) and bought into their own belief that we’d be greeted as liberators, with roses strewn at our feet. That’s where the indictment comes in. To quote Stallone in the original _Rocky_, “you shoulda planned ahead.” Our leaders didn’t - because they just assumed everything would go right. > [@](#): > > Now, I am not a military expert, but I know some. My father is one, and I know professionally members of the faculty of the Army War College in nearby Carlisle. > > To a man, they say the same thing. The problem right now is not one of military force. We have phenomenol force, in place, at our disposal. > > Force allows us to destroy. We have all that is necessary to destroy the entire nation and everybody in it. > > So why do we need more troops? What are we going to do with them? Unless we are planning on retaliating massively to every act of terrorism and waging war in a wholesale fashion against the populace of Iraq simply because it contains terrorist elements, than we don’t have a role for them to execute. > > Our soldiers wage war. They are not policeman. They are not civil servants. They are not engineers. They wage war. That’s what they do. Well, some of them _are_ policemen (MPs and the like) and engineers (USACE), trained by the U.S. Army to be just that. And the fact is that reconstruction and policing are just about the entirety of the mission, right now. If the U.S. military isn’t trained to do this mission, then what’s it doing there at all?? Exactly what numbers are the ‘right’ numbers for the job it’s not suited to do? What’s magic about our current force level? If more troops won’t help, would fewer not hurt? “We have the right number of incompetents with guns in Iraq now. We need every single incompetent we’ve got on the ground now, and we’re extending reservists’ tours to hold that strength level of incompetents, but more wouldn’t help.” Yeah, suuuuuuure. > [@](#): > > What we do need is better military intelligence, not military force. I’m assuming that we’re already applying all the intelligence resources we can to this problem. Of course, as long as we’re relying on ‘resources’ like Chalabi, who tell the theoreticians-in-charge (yeah, that’s you, Rummy and Wolfie) what they want to hear, we’re not likely to see an improved caliber of military intelligence in the region. Look, right now, [kidnapping is Baghdad’s new business opportunity](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10369-2003Sep14.html). [Women are shut out of public life by the fear of abduction and rape.](http://hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0703/1.htm#_Toc45709960)[40 people a day are killed in Baghdad](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/18/wirq118.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=54290), compared with roughly one a day in New York City. As long as this is what daily life is like in Iraq’s major cities, what you have is nobody in charge. The longer nobody’s in charge, the more groups there will be who thrive on the effective anarchy. The more groups you have with a vested interest in a lack of public order and safety, the less possible achieving those ends will be, because they will fight to protect their turf. That’s what we’re up against, whether we like it or not. If our troops can’t do anything about that, then we’d better bring 'em home, because they’ll be coming home soon enough - just more of them in boxes. But if they can, then it seems pretty obvious that more of them are better than fewer of them. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/144 "2003-09-17T02:17:51Z")
RTF: Sheesh, this is like from two weeks back. You must have really given my post a lot of thought. 😉 > [@](#): > > What a bunch of hooey. The whole frickin’ world was expecting a quick war. They should have had their postwar plans together before the first shot was fired in anger, just in case they were as good as advertised. If the ground war had taken two months, would the extra five weeks of planning time have solved the postwar problems? Do you really believe that?? I recall talk of a quagmire. It certainly went quicker than I thought, and quicker than the military claims to have expected in that report. I see no reason to doubt the report, and you seem to be doing so simply under general principles. Anyway, it’s not a question fo planning, it’s a question of having the assets in place. And yes, I do beleive it. The strategy we appeared to follow was that of a rolling deployment. Typically a rolling deployment is a short sharp offensive followed by consolidation and reinforcement. In this case, our starting offensive carried us all the way to Baghdad. Now an interesting discussion might be whether we made a tactical error in pushing are advantage or not. By pushing fast we lose consolidation but have a less bloody victory. Everybody seems to be complaining that we didn’t do it right, but the reality of the situation is that there are trade-offs. Had we cosnolidated and moved slower it might have been much bloodier that our blitzkrieg. > [@](#): > > The problem isn’t that there are problems. The problem is that we didn’t really expect them; our leaders believed their hired informant (Chalabi) and bought into their own belief that we’d be greeted as liberators, with roses strewn at our feet. > > That’s where the indictment comes in. To quote Stallone in the original Rocky, “you shoulda planned ahead.” Our leaders didn’t - because they just assumed everything would go right. Oh come now. You are better than that. Just about every single time Bush, Rummy, anybody showed up on tv, they talked about how it was long and difficult and how we were going to have to face all kinds of problems. Saying that the administration blithely assumed everything would just go right is pretty damned innacurate. > [@](#): > > Well, some of them are policemen (MPs and the like) and engineers (USACE), trained by the U.S. Army to be just that. > > And the fact is that reconstruction and policing are just about the entirety of the mission, right now. If the U.S. military isn’t trained to do this mission, then what’s it doing there at all?? Exactly what numbers are the ‘right’ numbers for the job it’s not suited to do? What’s magic about our current force level? If more troops won’t help, would fewer not hurt? “We have the right number of incompetents with guns in Iraq now. We need every single incompetent we’ve got on the ground now, and we’re extending reservists’ tours to hold that strength level of incompetents, but more wouldn’t help.” Yeah, suuuuuuure. The military version of police and engineers aren’t the same as their civilian counterparts. Our basic military role is to retain control until the new legitimate civilian authorities can take it. We will not be able to do a good job as occupiers. I doubt our administration is under any illusions about that. > [@](#): > > Look, right now, kidnapping is Baghdad’s new business opportunity. Women are shut out of public life by the fear of abduction and rape. 40 people a day are killed in Baghdad, compared with roughly one a day in New York City. > > As long as this is what daily life is like in Iraq’s major cities, what you have is nobody in charge. The longer nobody’s in charge, the more groups there will be who thrive on the effective anarchy. The more groups you have with a vested interest in a lack of public order and safety, the less possible achieving those ends will be, because they will fight to protect their turf. > > That’s what we’re up against, whether we like it or not. If our troops can’t do anything about that, then we’d better bring 'em home, because they’ll be coming home soon enough - just more of them in boxes. But if they can, then it seems pretty obvious that more of them are better than fewer of them. I really don’t see these things you cite as problems. I would expect that Baghdad would be a bit more dangerous place NYC, so you’re not really providing a revelation. Their probably doing better than LA during the riots though. Civil unrest, some anarchy, and lawlessness is to be expected. We just overthrew the country and all the authority’s in it. The concerning issue is the guerrilla warfare and foreign terrorists were facing. Frankly, I’m glad we’ve taken the fight to where the problem is rather than waiting for it to come to us again. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/145 "2003-09-17T03:30:41Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Scyllia_ > **The concerning issue is the guerrilla warfare and foreign terrorists were facing. Frankly, I’m glad we’ve taken the fight to where the problem is rather than waiting for it to come to us again. YMMV.** YMMV? In that case it might have been a good idea to take the fight to where the bad guys are rather than to a place where we might gain some collateral economic advantage. On the other hand, if the idea was to suck all the bad guys into Iraq where they could be efficiently disposed of in one place, big kill zone if you would, wouldn’t it have been a better idea to set up the terrorist magnet somewhere more convenient and less expensive like, for example, Alabama or West Texas. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/146 "2003-09-17T04:02:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding \* > \*\*YMMV? > > On the other hand, if the idea was to suck all the bad guys into Iraq where they could be efficiently disposed of in one place, big kill zone if you would, wouldn’t it have been a better idea to set up the terrorist magnet somewhere more convenient and less expensive like, for example, Alabama or West Texas. \*\* Actually I think **elucidator** lives in Minnesota now. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/147 "2003-09-17T04:12:05Z")
> [@](#): > > [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030917/ap\_on\_re\_mi\_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480) > > Six people claiming to be Americans and two who say they are British are in U.S. custody on suspicion of involvement in attacks on coalition forces, an American general said Tuesday There definitely seem to be thousands of non-Iraqis in Iraq fighting the Americans. Which is a silly situation to be in because if the Americans were not in Iraq the others would not be fighting to expel them. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/148 "2003-09-17T05:03:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > I recall talk of a quagmire. It certainly went quicker than I thought, and quicker than the military claims to have expected in that report. Irrelevant, really. The real problem, as many of us said all along, wasn’t the war itself but what was to follow. > [@](#): > > Oh come now. You are better than that. Just about every single time Bush, Rummy, anybody showed up on tv, they talked about how it was long and difficult and how we were going to have to face all kinds of problems. YOU are better than THAT. Yes, they talked about it occasionally. But there is no evidence whatever that they actually did any actual planning on that basis. No, every assumption was along the lines that evefy institution would remain intact, every citizen would gratefully welcome the liberators, and we’d be out of there as soon as the election of Chalabi was assured. Bullshit then, bullshit now. > [@](#): > > Our basic military role is to retain control until the new legitimate civilian authorities can take it. We will not be able to do a good job as occupiers. I doubt our administration is under any illusions about that. Really? If they believed that, then what are they doing about it? Hint: Squat. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I’m glad we’ve taken the fight to where the problem is rather than waiting for it to come to us again. YMMV. You’d do well to explain which problem you’re referring to that was there before - and especially what the word “again” means in that sentence. Are you buying the Cheney line that Saddam was behind 9/11? Why? What convinces you still, after so much discussion that I know you’ve read here? Tell us what evidence is so powerful - or even exists. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/149 "2003-09-17T05:13:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*The concerning issue is the guerrilla warfare and foreign terrorists were facing. Frankly, I’m glad we’ve taken the fight to where the problem is rather than waiting for it to come to us again. YMMV. \*\* Do you actually believe that Al Quaeda was in Iraq before we moved in? ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/150 "2003-09-17T06:42:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **Scylla** \* > Frankly, I’m glad we’ve taken the fight to where the problem is rather than waiting for it to come to us again. The problems were elsewhere. But it’s not only that the US is sucking some bad guys to Iraq now, as **Spavined Gelding** says. Once more the US created the kind of hostility against it, that makes people terrorists in the first place. Over and over I read this “bad guys” stuff **just like it was inevitable that there are some assholes out there that want to kill us.** What makes terrorists, where do they come from? From places like post-war Iraq for example. This place now is a whole new breeding ground for terrorists. Good job! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/151 "2003-09-17T12:01:53Z")
This just in: “Blix says Iraq probably destroyed WMDs” [http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2003/sep/17/091702041.html](http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2003/sep/17/091702041.html) See you all at **Scylla’s** house for Thanksgiving! ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/152 "2003-09-17T13:02:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > “Blix says Iraq probably destroyed WMDs” What a strawman!!! The quote should read: **Blix believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago** This was a result of the prior Gulf-war! ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/153 "2003-09-17T13:43:11Z")
Is the “big bang,” September disclosure about Sadaam’s weapons that were an “imminent threat” to the US still on, or is it in the process of becoming the “big fizzle.” Does anyone remember that David Kay was supposed to produce a definitive report on those weapons that would smash the “nay sayers” to smithereens? Do people care that the current gang of GW, Rummy, Wolfie _et al_ have in the past, and still would if the subject were ever brought up, lied, waffled, evaded and changed the subject whenever their stated main reason for this atrocious premtive war is mentioned? It seems to me that by stalling and continuing to insist that such weapons are hard to find but “they are there” the warmongers have managed to remove their lies from public attention. They have succeeded in the politicians’ main escape route, viz. “That is in the past, it is time to move on and work the current problems, not those of months ago.” Which of course, conveniently ignores the fact that the liars caused the “current problems” in the first place and should be accountable. And it will also allow GW to run for reelection on the basis that “we are in a war” and you “don’t change horses in midstream.” It is really sickening to me that polls show that a large majority of the electorate still has swallowed the lie that there was a pre-war tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that Sadaam had a hand in the WTC/ Pentagon attacks. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/154 "2003-09-17T14:08:36Z")
I’m not that pessimistic, **David**. Sure, they’ll try that approach, but its grounding in reality is so thin that it’s backfiring on them already. The sentiment that we were lied to and that people are dying because of it is already at or near majority status, and it’s growing steadily. If they keep it up, the backlash of anger will be real. But, as you point out, there may still be enough people too unwilling to accept the horrible possibility that they bought into it that the Bush pro-war vote will still be substantial. **Scylla** , do you really want to wait any longer, or might it better to just get it over with? Been working on drafts of your Post of Abjection, Abasement, and Acknowledgment of Asinity yet? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/155 "2003-09-17T15:26:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* there may still be enough people too unwilling to accept the horrible possibility that they bought into it that the Bush pro-war vote will still be substantial. > \*\* Many people still won’t believe that Ronald Reagan was as phony as a $3 bill. And as Adolf Hitler said in _Mein Kampf_ (Book I, Chap. 10) _" All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation … more often victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often lie in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clear in their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there must be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."_ ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/156 "2003-09-17T17:42:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > **Scylla** , Been working on drafts of … Acknowledgment of Asinity yet? He’s got to admit to behaving like an **Inverse Transcendental Function**? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/157 "2003-09-17T18:06:32Z")
Oops. Asininity. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/158 "2003-09-17T18:34:08Z")
[More on the Big Lie campaign](http://www.salon.com/opinion/scheer/2003/09/17/misspeak/) > [@](#): > > “We know [Iraq] had a great deal to do with terrorism in general and with al-Qaida in particular, and we know a great many of [Osama] bin Laden’s key lieutenants are now trying to organize in cooperation with old loyalists from the Saddam regime,” Wolfowitz told ABC on this year’s 9/11 anniversary. > > We know nothing of the sort, of course, and the next day Wolfowitz was forced to admit it. He told the Associated Press that his remarks referred not to a “great many” of bin Laden’s lieutenants but rather to a single Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. “\* should have been more precise,” Wolfowitz admitted. > > Even if the leaders of the Bush team were half as smart as they think they are, it would be amazing that they “misspeak” as often as they have. This happened again Sunday when Tim Russert challenged Vice President Dick Cheney to defend his claim, made on “Meet the Press” before the war, that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. “Yeah, I did misspeak,” Cheney admitted. “We never had any evidence that [Saddam] had acquired a nuclear weapon.” > > The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness, and Wolfowitz’s latest performance is a classic example: Even his correction needs correcting. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/159 "2003-09-17T22:29:19Z")
Interesting development: The White House “distances itself” from Cheney’s remarks about any theoretical connection between 9/11 and Goddam Hussein. Is this the first subtle indication that Richard “Big Dick” Cheney is about to walk the plank, fall on his sword and take a bullet for the home team? One slides into fond memories of transcripts of Nixon contemplating throwing John Mitchell to the wolves, how you had to give them somebody big, but not too big. “The Big Enchilada.” Its a ploy with an ancient historical pedigree. Times get tough for the sultan, he executes the vizier. (Sargon of Akkad did it first. His vizier was summarily dismissed.) The people say “No, no, the Leader is good! He has evil advisors, but when they are gone, all will be well again!” And, golly gosh, where is Mr. Kay’s thundering report? They did say the middle of September, didn’t they? That was a couple days ago, right? Wherever could it be? ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/160 "2003-09-18T00:56:05Z")
**"And, golly gosh, where is Mr. Kay’s thundering report? They did say the middle of September, didn’t they? That was a couple days ago, right? Wherever could it be?** Relax _young elucidater_, the nature of a suprise is to suprise, not to let the jacklegs of this board predict. Your September suprise is coming. Your dime to my dollar? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259.md?page=9)