[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.

[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?

[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.

[Republic of Texas]

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

[Republic]

If the NY times article is accurate....LOL.....large assumption dear, you ol sweet marxist mole who drops into FR now and then to promote the wailing klintonista spin.

Love ya gal.....and tho you don't deserve to have our troops led by good men and women, and the current administration and our terrific President SPARE you from having a so called smoking gun laid across your neigborhood in all its biological, chemical or perhaps nuclear ectasy>

And even tho you don't give a damn about the horrors that Saddam inflicts on innocents, the fact that he pays and encourages kids to blow themselves up in Palestine, the fact that he harbors and aids terrorists. etc, etc, etc,......

You are quick to buy into the words of absolute filth like bill and hillary klinton (gotta a babe? got some missile tech to sell to China? need perjury expertise? wanna slime the oval office? wanna pardon some felons? into quid pro quos?) spew, or their wards fart out with glee, you are not capable of understanding good character, true conviction based on faith and corroborated by our Constitution and the vision it takes to protect as well as defend our wonderful nation.

Go play in your playpen Murry, go read a few lines from the DU underground and bloat yourself up with lies, feel smug in your no smoking gun bravado, and let others, who know real compassion and understand end games, keep you safe.

[pfflier]

You posted on the wrong site. You were looking for the Barbara Streisand ass kisser's club site.

[Bars4Bill]

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

A former president has a deep interest in your rank hole out there in Murrysville, PA. Take a hike, skank.

[The Real Deal]

More liberal BS.