WMD's Found in Kuwait?

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by RACooper
Alright I've wacthed the bickering for long enough.....

Yes I did see the original broadcast of Kay speaking about the findings in Iraq (thanks god for the CBC and BBC). What he did say that there was no cedible evidence of WMD found as of yet in Iraq, and he then went to talk about some of the various "finds" (including the so-called UAVs and the British balloon trucks). It was long and it was boring.... but pretty much in keeping with what the media has been reporting up here (and yes we do get that crap called Fox news).

CBC and BBC usually keep video or transcripts so i'll see if I can track them down and post a link......

I believe that you have that wrong. Kay did not say that there was no credible evidence for the existence of weapons (at least not in the two interviews that I watched). He said, that weapons had not yet been found. There is a huge difference between no credible evidence of weapons and not yet finding a weapon. He did speak of pieces of "evidence" for the weapons program that Iraq continued to conduct in defiance of the UN mandate, including at least one biological agent that had been found and others that they had evidence of , labs filled with banned equipment and other banned material, etc.. The point that I have been making here is that the media too often reports what they want the public to hear, and that Kay himself is amazed that the media in general has only told a small part of the story, omitting what has been discovered.

[MereMere21]

I will go back the point that if any of this were actually true then the media would be giving it more coverage.

As for my "research" I don't sit at home scowering the internet for what Mr. Kay said to defend an opinion in a post. Like I said, how do YOU know what he said either? You get your information from the media just like we do - unless you have some 'inside' information no one here is aware of.

Of course the media is only going to report half of what was said - they can only scew it so much though. I don't believe that anyone in the media would have made up Mr. Kay saying two completely things in a week. Thats all.

[bethany1982]

You read an article about the report. I heard what Kay himself said... I see a huge difference. Especially, if the two reports are different.

[MereMere21]

OK - then why isn't there more media coverage? You would think this would be the smoking gun - - - Especially now that the CA fiasco is over. All I'm saying is that its a little suspicious.

[sugar and spice]

"We have not at this point found actual weapons," Kay told several congressional committees. "It does not mean we have concluded there are no actual weapons."

-- from RACooper's link

I think that sums it all up very nicely. Bethany is focusing on the second half of his statement, we are all focusing on the first.

The first half, to me, is what remains more important at this point in time.

And Bethany, it's funny that you heard Kay saying SUCH different things than were reported in the media -- yet all the different sources of media are reporting the exact same thing. That leads me to believe that Kay (deliberately or accidentally) constructed his report in such a way as to give mixed messages. The quote above is a good one. Depending on your slant, it can either be taken to mean "We haven't found anything and, after several months of looking haven't found anything" or "We're still looking, and we have some good leads."

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by MereMere21
OK - then why isn't there more media coverage? You would think this would be the smoking gun - - - Especially now that the CA fiasco is over. All I'm saying is that its a little suspicious.

I agree. But my suspicions are directed toward much of the mainstream media. There is no doubt what Kay said. If the media thought it was incorrect or filled with lies, they would be reporting that. Enough said... I know neither one of us are here to argue.

[James]

Does it really matter?

We invaded their country and took them over. Might still makes right to a degree.

We wouldn't have invaded their country if 9/11 didn't happen.

I am not sure of the deep motivational reasons that might have driven the invasion.

It might be something as simple as the NEED for the people in charge to do something more than chase a bunch of disorganized third worlders around in Afghanistan.

No matter how you frame that it doesn't look very satisfying as an example of Super Power retaliation.

Plus we haven't adjusted to the new threat scheme yet. OF small groups of people with a lot of money, followers and a cause being a major pain in our asses.

The invasion of Iraq as retaliation for 9/11 is tremendously more
satisfying. And thats what it really is. ITs also very consistent with the way you expect Nation-States to respond.

Most of the other justifications are probably sophistry.

So in the end, does it really matter whether we find the WMD?

We invaded because the people in charge felt the times demanded it.

[Optimist Prime]

War in Iraq was never the answer. We should have taken Saudi Arabia and all those countries that sorrouded on that pensiusla, Yemen, UAE, etc. I just one question about this. What is Qatar? They're a mideastern country right? If so we should befriend them, because Qatar is a really cool name.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by bethany1982
I believe that you have that wrong. Kay did not say that there was no credible evidence for the existence of weapons (at least not in the two interviews that I watched).

Nope, as I recall, RA's quote is correct. That language is not something you would use in daily speech. It came from Kay's initial briefing. A week or so later -- after the President changed his tune, Kay did as well.