Sorry, I missed that. While Iraq is a big place, al Qaqaa was well known to us. If I've missed the meaning of your post, I apologize.

>Sorry, I thought the <s> got the irony across. "we had every reason to believe the weapons ( say - botulism toxin, sarin etc ) were there when the war started. We may have suspected they were moved before the war started, and still don't know."
>
>Iraq is a big place. Syria is a big place. The Bekaa is terra icognita ( unless you are a keyhole satellite ).
>
>I hope the answer does not come as an upleasant surprise. But I do know there are people working on it who won't be giving news conferences.
>
>
>>What I am saying is that we had every reason to believe those weapons were there when the war started. We may have suspected they were moved before the war started, and still don't now.
>>
>>Since we had every reason to believe the weapons were there, it's sound military strategy to secure them. We didn't have a plan to secure them, or we didn't have enough troops to implement the plan.
>>
>>>Do I understand you to say that the absence of weapons and the fact that we do not know if or when they were moved or where they are now is not evidence they were never there and posed no threat? <s>
>>>
>>>>>>>And the administration still didn't have a plan for securing the weapons, or enough troops to secure them<<
>>>>>
>>>>>What makes you think that. Because John Kerry says so??
>>>>
>>>>We knew these weapons were there in early March.
>>>>We didn't know they were missing until May.
>>>>The Pentagon can't tell us if the weapons were moved before the war started, or after US troops got there in early April.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, the weapons could have been moved after US troops first arrived. Meaning that the facility was not secured. Either there wasn't a plan to secure it, or we didn't have enough troops to secure it.