David Kay Flashback: Iraqi Documents Showed WMD

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

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

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.

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.

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

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???

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?

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?

hes a liar took you forever to admit it

....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???

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

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.

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".

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

2. See #1 above.

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.

....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.

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.

....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.

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

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

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.

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

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.