Why We Know Iraq Is Lying

NY Times ^ | 1/23/03 | CONDOLEEZZA RICE

[goodnesswins]

THANKS....I was thinking of "calling" you....

[MurryMom]

Yesterday, the NY Times reported on this astonishing admission: "Administration officials said their strategy was based on the belief that there might never be a 'smoking gun' proving Iraq's possession of illegal weapons" ("U.S. Set to Demand That Allies Agree Iraq Is Defying U.N.," NYTimes, 01/23/03).

What? For months the Administration has reassured us that it has secret evidence about Iraq's weapons, with many a pundit admonishing sceptics for not trusting the president. For months, the Administration has promised that the release of unequivocal evidence was coming "soon" (only a few days ago Colin Powell said we would see it by the end of this month). After all those promises, we now learn, casually, just by the way, that in fact no such evidence exists.

This admission seems worth a headline in its own right. Germany and France are digging in their heels in large part because of the absence of such evidence. Pundits across the spectrum have advised the Administration to share what it says it knows, just as Kennedy did in the Cuba missile crisis. Meanwhile, polls in this country show public support for war plummeting if the US goes in without U.N. support and without clear evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.

If the NY Times report is accurate, the Dumbya Administration has dug quite a deep hole for itself out there in the desert.

[pgyanke]

Actually, what you and the political left (including the media and the Congressional Democrats) fail to realize the is that the absence of a smoking gun IS the smoking gun. As Ms Rice said above, we know about 80-90% of their weapons program already--we're unsure on the nukes but they are only a part of the NBC spectrum. We know about much of it because WE GAVE IT TO THEM during the Iran/Iraq war.

The fact is that the burden of proof of disarmament is on Saddam. We're not looking for weapons...we know about the weapons. We're looking for proof that he has disposed of the weapons IAW U.N. resolutions.

Also, I think the administration's moves on this issue have been masterful. I think GW is stringing the Democrats along. They have seen the evidence and some have even acknowledged that GW is doing what must be done. They, however, have chosen to challenge him for their own political benefit at the expense of the nation. He's letting them have their say and, when the time is right, he will put them in their place.

[finnman69]

If the NY Times report is accurate, the Dumbya Administration has dug quite a deep hole for itself out there in the desert.

It's more likely you will be eating your words shortly.

[Cyber Liberty]

If the NY Times report is accurate, the Dumbya Administration has dug quite a deep hole for itself out there in the desert.

If a NY Times report is ever accurate, I'd die from a heart attack on the spot.

[VOA]

bump

[AbsoluteJustice]

Ok Murry calm down a bit there is noone at the N.Y Times that represents the administration or makes decisions based on military action. If we did not have overwhelming evidence then we would not have gotten overwhelming democratic support for this was. There are security councils on the hill Dem's and Republicans that would call Bush on this if these statements he made about evidence were not true. The ones (Media, Dems) that do not sit on the security council are not privvy to that information because they blab constanly as is evident here. Administration officials HA I believe as much as in this paper as I do IRAGS press reports. Cmon now!!! Do you not think this probably came from a disgruntld DEM who is not privvy to info and wants to thwart the war effort?

[lepton]

bookmark bump

[MurryMom]

Actually, what you and the political left (including the media and the Congressional Democrats) fail to realize the is that the absence of a smoking gun IS the smoking gun.

LOL! I hope you are never put on trial for murder, pg.

The prosecutor would be certain to quote your words to the jury. You'd be dead meat, even with an ironclad alibi and a dozen priests and nuns as character witnesses.

[mewzilla]

Vis-a-vis the smoking gun, why do we even need one? Iraq's already in material breach, or hadn't you noticed?

[MurryMom]

Iraq's declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text.

LOL! Little Dumbya and other goofy members of his administration never fail to generate lots of material for the Saturday Night Live and Politically Incorrect shows!

So when has copyright infringement become grounds for launching a missile strike? I bet Condi Rice never launched any missiles on the underclass dorms at Stanford when she discovered that some of her pupils copied papers from their classmates or from public sources.

[finnman69]

Obviously her eloquently drafted editorial might have been a bit advanced for you. Her point is they have offered nothing new.

Why do you even bother to post here since FR is out of your league?

[Wolfstar]

BTW, thanks for the kind reply yesterday :-)

You are most welcome.

As to the anthrax issue, like you, I don't have the knowledge necessary to understand how particular strains are identified. But it doesn't take specialized knowledge to recognize that there are just too many "coincidences" connecting the 9/11 hijackers and the anthrax attacks. Yet, to our media (along with the Euro-weenies and your Prime Minister) it's as though the events of 2001 never happened.

If I had the time and money, I would thoroughly research the anthrax attacks. Re-interview AMA employees, do a Lexis-Nexis search of reportage at that time, follow the trail of the hijackers in Florida, interview the pharmacist and the doctor who saw reddened hands and black skin lesions on two of the highjackers, and so on. Then I would publish my findings. Sigh.

[pgyanke]

Taking words out of context to make your point (which you failed to do) shows the depth of your argument... shallow.

The REASON the smoking gun IS the absense of the smoking gun is because the burden of proof is on Saddam Hussein. We know he had the weapons in the 80's and we know he had them in the 90's. THE POINT is that he will produce no evidence that he has destroyed said weapons IAW U.N. resolutions. Therefore, said weapons still exist and are in hiding and he is being less than forthcoming.

By not understanding what you are talking about (like the media), you propagate a false notion regarding the purpose for the inspections. We're not looking for weapons... we're looking for the evidence that they're gone.

[pgyanke]

> "So when has copyright infringement become grounds for launching a missile strike?"

Go back to DU... you're out of your league.

[mitchbert]

the doctor who saw reddened hands and black skin lesions on two of the highjackers,

The incident that convinced me. I'm so glad you and some others saw it.

[L.N. Smithee]

Deep down you know that for people who put Libyans in charge of human rights and who thought that Clinton was telling the truth about Monica Lewinsky, there IS no such thing as "a smoking gun." Nothing is good enough for the willingly blind.

[paul51]

I think you may be in the wrong place

[Republic of Texas]

First, no one cares what the NY Times thinks. Second, just donate some money already, this ain't PBS.

[Republic of Texas]

If you are waiting for a socialist to admit they are wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, pack a lunch, it'll be a while.