Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.


CNET Support

General discussion

David Kay Flashback: Iraqi Documents Showed WMD

Nov 30, 2005 10:59PM PST

What happened to the internal Iraqi government documents that top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said had convinced him that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?

In January 2004, Kay told Congress that the U.S. was "almost all wrong" in believing that Saddam had WMDs.

But six months earlier in July 2003, Kay said he was sure Iraq had the banned weapons - based on millions of pages of internal government documents recovered from Saddam's regime.

"I've already seen enough to convince me," Kay told then-NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw. "You cannot believe how many cases we have of documents and equipment that are stored in private residences," he added.


Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Question from article
Nov 30, 2005 11:35PM PST

What happened to the internal Iraqi government documents?

from your link

the documents that convinced Mr. Kay that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction remain a closely guarded secret, with a team of 200 Pentagon analysts reportedly still sifting through their contents.

Don't they answer their own question?

- Collapse -
ok jp
Dec 1, 2005 12:40AM PST

1 i didnt write the article
2 why dont you ask him?
you can email him and ask

- Collapse -
I thought you would be smarter than that,
Dec 1, 2005 6:13AM PST

The question isn?t where physically the documents are, rather WHY DON?T THE LIBERALS REMEMBER THEM?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) they suffer from CRS
Dec 1, 2005 6:41AM PST
- Collapse -
I thought you would be smarter than that,
Dec 1, 2005 12:31PM PST

What ever gave you that idea?

The question isn?t where physically the documents are, rather WHY DON?T THE LIBERALS REMEMBER THEM?

That's not the question. It seems the author of the article wants to know why the documents aren't released.

In the meantime, the Bush administration needs to stop the Pentagon's dithering and order the immediate release of the evidence described by Kay - including the ''audiotapes'' and ''equipment'' he mentioned to Brokaw.

- Collapse -
Do you really think for one minute,
Dec 1, 2005 8:27PM PST

That if the Liberals wanted these documents released, that they wouldn?t have one of their patented media hissy fits and demand that the documents be released? Nope, they want these documents buried and forgotten.

- Collapse -
We heard any number of citations of "evidence" and "reasons"
Dec 1, 2005 9:29PM PST

all of which turned out to be bogus. If you guys can't keep the fictions straight, how are we supposed to.


But we're there now so let's get on with pacification and helping them set up an effective and stable government.


- Collapse -
Well DUH, great hindsight
Dec 1, 2005 9:44PM PST

at the time though, everyone (yourself excluded) believed there were WMD's. Geeesh, how many times do you need that explained?

- Collapse -
read this link and post back
Dec 1, 2005 10:45PM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You?....quoting a liar
Dec 1, 2005 10:53PM PST
- Collapse -
LOL I didn't even think of that!!!
Dec 1, 2005 10:57PM PST

So Mark, is this the one time in his life that Bill Clinton was telling the truth?

Because if, as you've said many times, you can't believe Bill Clinton when he says the sky is blue, why should he have been telling the truth about Iraq and WMDs???

- Collapse -
josh was he lieing then or now
Dec 1, 2005 11:11PM PST

you tell us were waiting. where did they WMDS go?
did the tooth fairy fly down and remove them.

as they were there then acording to him?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Going by you, he's always lying.
Dec 1, 2005 11:15PM PST
- Collapse -
And if he's always lying, then he was lying in 1998
Dec 1, 2005 11:27PM PST

Right, Mark?

Besides, aren't you guys always saying that those air strikes weren't really necessary and that they were just launched to divert the press's attention away from Monica?

- Collapse -
and so you finally admit it
Dec 2, 2005 1:10AM PST

hes a liar took you forever to admit it

- Collapse -
So if he's a liar....
Dec 2, 2005 1:23AM PST

....and was lying in 1998, why did you link to his statement and ask Rob to comment on it? If he was lying then Iraq didn't have WMDs in 1998, right???

- Collapse -
well you all non supporters
Dec 1, 2005 11:10PM PST

seem to like billy boy.
so just as others have said b4 was he a liar then or now?

- Collapse -
Two observations
Dec 1, 2005 10:54PM PST

1. Clinton ordered air strikes against specific targets -- in 1998 -- and this action in no way proves or disproves whether Iraq still had WMDs 5 years later. If anything, the air strikes probably helped get rid of whatever WMDs Iraq may have had left.

2. These were air strikes that lasted four days, not a ground force invasion.

- Collapse -
Wait a minute...
Dec 1, 2005 11:51PM PST

1...If anything, the air strikes probably helped get rid of whatever WMDs Iraq may have had left.

Do you really believe that? It's ridiculous.]

2.These were air strikes that lasted four days, not a ground force invasion.

And thus totally inadequate in solving the problem, unless the problem was *ahem* Bill's "problem".

- Collapse -
Dec 1, 2005 11:55PM PST

1. Being that no WMDs have been found since our invasion, maybe not so ridiculous.

2. See #1 above.

- Collapse -
Dec 2, 2005 12:12AM PST

Maybe they were all destroyed in "Shock and Awe" then. So Bush is off the hook, right?

Josh, it's absurd. Your faith in the power of aerial bombing is touching though.

- Collapse -
Dec 2, 2005 12:27AM PST

....the bombing got rid of some, and the rest was destroyed subsequently, which is what we were trying to get him to do in the first place.

It's also possible that Saddam thought he still had them when he didn't.

- Collapse -
Your fantasy won't allow...
Dec 2, 2005 12:37AM PST

the possibility that the far more massive bombing by Bush didn't get rid of them though? Lucky shot by Clinton.

Enough. It's too absurd.

Explains something about the liberal mentality though. If only we could win wars without any of the messy casualties, especially on our side.

- Collapse -
My recollection is....
Dec 2, 2005 12:40AM PST

....that the sites bombed by Bush were examined for evidence of WMDs having been there, and none was found.

I don't know whether Clinton got any or not. Maybe they were all gone by 1998. Since we weren't able to go in and examine the bomb sites, there's no way to know for sure.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) and why werenent we allowed?
Dec 2, 2005 1:14AM PST
- Collapse -
ed if we didnt care for the inocents
Dec 2, 2005 1:14AM PST

we could have just used air power to level iraq never have 1 of our troops hurt.

- Collapse -
Dec 2, 2005 1:12AM PST

It's also possible that Saddam thought he still had them when he didn't<<<<wouldnt he have known? and if so why did he through out the inspectors?? me thinks you should rethink your reply

- Collapse -
This has been discussed before, Mark
Dec 2, 2005 1:33AM PST

In fact I think the theory was brought up by someone on your side of the aisle. It's pretty simple. Suppose Saddam had put you in charge of developing some chemical weapon, and you had failed to do it (experiments didn't work or whatever reason). Knowing what Saddam does to people who disappoint him, do you:

a) Admit you failed and prepare for the consequences

or b) Lie and say you succeeded.

With the right kind of bluffing if he chose to come see for himself, you could get away with choice b, Saddam would honestly believe that he had the banned weapons when he didn't, and would behave accordingly with the UN and the US.

- Collapse -
so we should have wairted
Dec 2, 2005 1:37AM PST

another 12 yrs josh?

seems to me only way is to do what the man did was go in like we did.
you wait till wolfs in the pen

- Collapse -
What's to develop, Josh...
Dec 2, 2005 2:37AM PST

Josh, what's to "develop"? The Kurds and Iranians found out the hard way that he had already figured out how to develop them. In your choices, you left out choice "c", label some non- biological or chemical munitions as being such and saying "there they are" in case of an inspection. I doubt that Saddam would have cracked one open to check it out during an inspection. A variation of the empty box in a bogus inventory trick.