Posted on 01/28/2004 12:33:25 PM PST by mcbud
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:06:25 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
We've reached an intriguing moment in the saga of evil regimes and weapons of mass destruction--their presence or absence, and the uncertainty zone between.
In Iraq, the U.S. and the United Nations had reason to believe that Saddam Hussein--having invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his fellow Iraqis, gassed the Kurds, plundered his country, and set a standard in the Middle East of fascist brutality to rival Hitler--was still pursuing weapons of mass destruction. A U.S.-led coalition toppled Saddam's regime. Now the recent U.S. point man for the weapons search in Iraq, David Kay, is saying it looks as if maybe Saddam didn't have any WMDs. At least not significant stocks, at least not that we've found. Mr. Kay's best guess is that Saddam only thought he had a WMD program.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I quite agree. I for one will never live under the paw of Buster Brown's pet dog.
Is Kay backtracking like this, or the author?
He hasn't said maybe Saddam didn't have any WMDs; he has said it looks like there weren't large stockpiles. He also has not said really anything about whether significant quantities may have been moved to and hidden in Syria prior to the war, only that we don't know one way or the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.