Kay promises WMD 'surprises' [Archive]

groovebuster

Aug 1, 2003, 04:46 AM

So let's wait and see... so far there is no evidence presented, just an announcement that there might be evidence in the future. It's like playing the lottery and saying: "You'll be surprised when I win the jackpot!"

I'll believe it when I see it... I am just wondering why it was "so easy" to find all the WMD sites before thy went in, presenting them as a "proof" and now they need hundreds of specialists to find something at least.

And since the Bush administration lied to us before, I will remain sceptical even if evidence will be presented. Who knows if the evidence is made up (just a little bit smarter this time) because the WH is under such a big pressure to justify the war...

groovebuster

Backtothemac

Aug 1, 2003, 10:01 AM

Your right toonra, we have been secretly shipping NBC weapons to Iraq so that we can claim that they have them. That way we do not have to destroy the ones at the Anniston Army Depot here in Alabama.

:rolleyes:

If they are there they will find them, if not, they won't.

toontra

Aug 1, 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Your right toonra, we have been secretly shipping NBC weapons to Iraq so that we can claim that they have them. That way we do not have to destroy the ones at the Anniston Army Depot here in Alabama.

:rolleyes:

If they are there they will find them, if not, they won't.

The reason I am suspicious, B2TM, is that the US have refused to allow independent weapons inspectors into Iraq, replacing the fully-trained UN team with their own.

Why?

It doesn't take a conspiracy-theorist to be suspicious of these latest statements, especially when the head of the team starts talking up his findings before the inspections are concluded.

Sayhey

Aug 1, 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Your right toonra, we have been secretly shipping NBC weapons to Iraq so that we can claim that they have them. That way we do not have to destroy the ones at the Anniston Army Depot here in Alabama.

:rolleyes:

If they are there they will find them, if not, they won't.

A lot of friends having been saying, "Of course they will find WMD's, even if they have to put them there to do so." The use of independant inspectors would go a long way to helping my friends believe the findings. More important it would help the rest of the world to believe an administration whose credibility is already strained to the breaking point.

Do I think there were WMD's in Iraq? Absolutely, but if any still existed at the time of the invasion they could have been eliminated by the peaceful means of the very strict inspection regime.

IJ Reilly

Aug 1, 2003, 11:48 AM

I have a sneaking suspicion that these "surprises," whatever they turn out to be, will be made public in the spring and summer of next year.

sparkleytone

Aug 1, 2003, 11:51 AM

its all fabricated. we put the weapons there. there were never any weapons. the war was just for fun. i state firmly that any future information that would possibly prove anything to be right about the Bush Administration's crusade is fabricated, falsified, and fraudulent. Fallacies, fickle, and phallic. Amen.

zimv20

Aug 1, 2003, 12:19 PM

my position remains unchanged since the beginning of the year: the stakes are too high for bush not to find WMD. should any be found, i will remain highly sceptical until the find is independently verified by a UN inspection team.

then i shall render my own judgement if the find qualifies as "an immediate danger to the US."

zimv20

Aug 1, 2003, 02:40 PM

from http://www.debka.com today

Evidence found of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program, according to report by David Kay, head of new coalition team of WMD-hunters in Iraq, to US Senate committee in closed door session Thursday

macfan

Aug 1, 2003, 03:39 PM

IJ Reilly,
You might be right. That would be around the time of the primary elections, just as Democrats (save Leiberman) start to heat up their whining rhetoric about removing Saddam without cause, up pops the chem/bio programs that Saddam was hiding. Scientists interviews, physical evidence, etc. etc. The weapons inspector says he has all the evidence he needs to convince himself, but he's being through. It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. Right before the US struck Afghanistan, Senator Daschle was complaining on the TV news shows that nothing was being done and it had been a month! Of course, this had nothing to do with the military timing of the attack, but it did make him look like an idiot.

IJ Reilly

Aug 1, 2003, 03:48 PM

At least you are finally willing to admit that the timing of the war was for political effect, a case I've been making since the beginning of the year. Whew, I'm glad we finally got that settled. Now we can move on to less important matters!

macfan

Aug 1, 2003, 03:59 PM

I did not say that the timing of the war was for political effect. You should slap yourself down for putting words in my mouth, a crime which you so often like to accuse me of committing! ;)

The timing of the Afghanistan war was not for political effect. It was a happy coincidence for Bush that the noticable part of the start of that war (criuse missile strikes, etc.) came about on the same weekend that the former majority leader of the Senate started whining about it. The action had been ongoing on the ground prior to those overt strikes.

Already, Democrats are whining that WMD programs will not be enough, that non compliance with the UN resolutions wasn't enough. They are saying that unless the see actual weapons, not just the capacity to produce them, then the whole war was a fraud. With most Americans, that is just not going to fly. I suspect this is because it is becoming clear to them that Saddam wasn't complying, that he did have these programs, and that he was actively concealing them from the UN inspectors. Thus, the bar must be raised to a higher level, or they have only the weak economy to stand on, and that might get better before the election.

zimv20

Aug 1, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by macfan

Already, Democrats are whining that WMD programs will not be enough, that non compliance with the UN resolutions wasn't enough. They are saying that unless the see actual weapons, not just the capacity to produce them, then the whole war was a fraud.[...] Thus, the bar must be raised to a higher level

but wait -- that bar was set by the WH before the war. it was only in the first few weeks after the war was declared over that the language coming from the WH changed from "finding weapons" to "finding weapons programs" to "finding evidence of weapons programs."

bait and switch.

toontra

Aug 1, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by macfan
Already, Democrats are whining that WMD programs will not be enough, that non compliance with the UN resolutions wasn't enough. They are saying that unless the see actual weapons, not just the capacity to produce them, then the whole war was a fraud.

In the UK we were told that Iraq had WMD which were capable of being used within 45 minutes notice, as was Parliament, and it was on that basis that the Government cobbled together a modicum of support, albeit reluctant, for the war.
I wonder how different things would have played out if we has been told that there may be evidence of WMD programmes.

And, just for the record, I was suggesting in this forum in April that the US should allow independent weapons inspectors (preferably the UN) into Iraq to avoid any possible "conflict of interest".

Backtothemac

Aug 1, 2003, 06:40 PM

I just find it laughable that people complain after two months that they have not found the weapons, and then when the guy in charge says they will have suprises people assume that means that we are planting weapons there. If we were going to do that it would not matter if the inspectors were from the UN or the US, they would still get them there.

However, that is so far out there, that it is a last resort of those that are anti-Bush. That is what it is, and that is all that it is.

macfan

Aug 1, 2003, 11:37 PM

Well said, backtothemac.

toontra

Aug 2, 2003, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I just find it laughable that people complain after two months that they have not found the weapons, and then when the guy in charge says they will have surprises people assume that means that we are planting weapons there. If we were going to do that it would not matter if the inspectors were from the UN or the US, they would still get them there.

However, that is so far out there, that it is a last resort of those that are anti-Bush. That is what it is, and that is all that it is.

I'm a UK citizen and, as such, don't give a damn about Bush's domestic policy, so I'm not a "Bush hater" as such, other than as his policies affect me directly. I've also never said that weapons will be planted. What concerns me is the slant that may be given to any unconclusive evidence.

What I am saying here is that the rhetoric of Kay contrasts starkly with that of Hans Blix, and as such one worries about the even-handedness of his final report.

If, B2TM, you are saying, "Hey, trust us on this one. Sit back and, in the fullness of time our guys out there will provide the evidence that we need to get us out of a huge hole that threatens our whole administration. Hey, but we don't want any independent inspectors in there while this is going on", then I find that position luaghable also.

By the way, no-one has given a convincing argument as to why it isn't the UN carrying out these inspections. It may seem a small point to you, but I assure you it isn't to the rest of the world, and surely credibility in this matter is crucial.

Backtothemac

Aug 2, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by toontra
I'm a UK citizen and, as such, don't give a damn about Bush's domestic policy, so I'm not a "Bush hater" as such, other than as his policies affect me directly. I've also never said that weapons will be planted. What concerns me is the slant that may be given to any unconclusive evidence.

What I am saying here is that the rhetoric of Kay contrasts starkly with that of Hans Blix, and as such one worries about the even-handedness of his final report.

If, B2TM, you are saying, "Hey, trust us on this one. Sit back and, in the fullness of time our guys out there will provide the evidence that we need to get us out of a huge hole that threatens our whole administration. Hey, but we don't want any independent inspectors in there while this is going on", then I find that position luaghable also.

By the way, no-one has given a convincing argument as to why it isn't the UN carrying out these inspections. It may seem a small point to you, but I assure you it isn't to the rest of the world, and surely credibility in this matter is crucial.

Wait a minute. The UN has, since 92, said consistantly that Saddam has a weapons program and has requested that he give them up. He did not. There are over 30,000 liters of Anthrax unaccounted for, 5,000 tons of VX precurser, 10,000 liters of Botolism toxin, the missing scuds, all information about his Nuke program etc. Remember we found over 30 new fight jets buried in the desert this past week. That is what we are up against over there. So, the only difference between Kay, and Blix is that Kay is not being stopped by the regime from looking any damn were they please. No minders, no rules. Go where you like.

As an American, I find it massively insulting that you would automatically assume that we would plant NBC weapons in Iraq. That won't happen. That is so far out there, that like I said, it is laughable. What from the past makes you think that we would do something like that? NOTHING.

It is flamebait, and a massive insult, so please, if that is your TRUE opinion, it may be better kept private. Remember that there are people here that post from all over the world, and we have to respect each other. My Great Uncle died on the shores of Normandy defending YOUR country. My Grandfather spilled his blood on Iwa Jima. I personally have served this county, and so has every male in my family but one. And my sister on top of that. You assumtion that the US would plant NBC weapons is a personal insult to every military member that has fought with honor and courage in the history of our country. So please, think before you accuse.

And no, you never said that they would definately plant NBC weapons, but you seriously implied it.

David Kay is saying we "should not be surprised by surprises"! LINK
Apart from being tautologous, that statement has more that an air of the Bush "bad men" mentality about it.
He appears to be pre-judging the conclusions of his findings. This sort of statement contrasts starkly with the sober, even-handed and reasoned statements from Hans Blix.
Be prepared to be hoodwinked!

zimv20

Aug 2, 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
There are over 30,000 liters of Anthrax unaccounted for, 5,000 tons of VX precurser, 10,000 liters of Botolism toxin,

has anyone nailed down the source of those estimates?

As an American, I find it massively insulting that you would automatically assume that we would plant NBC weapons in Iraq.

the stakes for bush and blair are very high. i have to assume someone within the administration has discussed it. we need go back only a few days to find the idea of the terrorism futures market to illustrate such creativity.

IJ Reilly

Aug 2, 2003, 11:42 AM

For the record, this American does not find toontra's questions and concerns to be even the least bit insulting. A Briton has as much right as anyone to raise these questions, and should not be shouted down by anyone for having asked them.

Sayhey

Aug 2, 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
As an American, I find it massively insulting that you would automatically assume that we would plant NBC weapons in Iraq. That won't happen. That is so far out there, that like I said, it is laughable. What from the past makes you think that we would do something like that? NOTHING.

It is flamebait, and a massive insult, so please, if that is your TRUE opinion, it may be better kept private. Remember that there are people here that post from all over the world, and we have to respect each other. My Great Uncle died on the shores of Normandy defending YOUR country. My Grandfather spilled his blood on Iwa Jima. I personally have served this county, and so has every male in my family but one. And my sister on top of that. You assumtion that the US would plant NBC weapons is a personal insult to every military member that has fought with honor and courage in the history of our country. So please, think before you accuse.

BTTM, with all do respect, your history of service and those of your family has nothing to do with the possible deception on the part of the US leadership. No one that I've seen has ever accused you or your family of any type of deception. Many, many people either served in the military or have family members who have done so, but is that a credential necessary to criticize our leaders?

This is not a personal discussion of your honor. I won't and I haven't seen others try to cast aspersions on you. If it makes any difference from an anonymous someone who only is typing words into a computer from thousands of miles away, I respect and value your service.

If I recall my history correctly, British soldiers also died defending Americans at Normandy and many other locations. Perhaps we should be a little more circumspect when talking of the debt owed to America because of our battlefield deaths; it is a series of debts that goes both ways. Pride in the sacrifices made is justifiable, but ignoring the sacrifices of others is not.

Is there a history of deception in US military actions? It does not do a disservice to the memory of all the brave men and women who have served to answer in some cases - yes. The use of the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify the escalation of the Vietnam War is a case where a President, a Democratic one in this example, did just that.

Do I think the US would plant WMD's - NO! It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do because it just might get out. But have leaders ordered incredibly stupid things in the past? YES! The Iran/Contra scandal springs to mind.

The fact that many in this country and throughout the world think that the Bush Adminstration and the Blair government exaggerated claims of the WMD's in Iraq as a way to move us to military action should mean that to restore credibility the search for these weapons should be as tranparent as possible. That propostion does no one's honor any harm.

toontra

Aug 2, 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
So, the only difference between Kay, and Blix is that Kay is not being stopped by the regime from looking any damn were they please. No minders, no rules. Go where you like.

Wrong. A UN team going in now wouldn't be hindered in any way either (unless by the occupying forces). So what's your point?

Secondly, because you and members of your family have served in the US military doesn't give you a monopoly on the truth, I'm afraid. You are entitled to an opinion, as am I, and I won't be bullied into keeping my opinions to myself, as you suggest.

I haven't posted anything which could possibly be construed as flame-bait and I haven't "insulted" anyone - I suggest you moderate your tone.

Backtothemac

Aug 2, 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by toontra
Wrong. A UN team going in now wouldn't be hindered in any way either (unless by the occupying forces). So what's your point?

Secondly, because you and members of your family have served in the US military doesn't give you a monopoly on the truth, I'm afraid. You are entitled to an opinion, as am I, and I won't be bullied into keeping my opinions to myself, as you suggest.

I haven't posted anything which could possibly be construed as flame-bait and I haven't "insulted" anyone - I suggest you moderate your tone.

My tone is fine. It isn't the problem. You insinuate that the US will plant the weapons there. That is your opinion, however, all I was doing was pointing out that it could be viewed as flamebait by some of the people that post here. It is very, very anti-US.

And, why should we let the UN in? To make the world happy? There are plenty of former UN inspectors on the team now, and you talk of the UN as if they are a perfect non-bias organization. They do have their own agenda you know.

As far as my family and myself serving in the military, that doesn't have anything to do with the truth. I stated that to point out to you how your opinion, and insinuations were insulting to people like myself who have served in the name of freedom.

Backtothemac

Aug 2, 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
has anyone nailed down the source of those estimates?

Yea, from Iraqi documents showing what was produced, vs, what was destoryed by inspectors during the 90's.

Backtothemac

Aug 2, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
For the record, this American does not find toontra's questions and concerns to be even the least bit insulting. A Briton has as much right as anyone to raise these questions, and should not be shouted down by anyone for having asked them.

That is fine, that is your opinion, what I said was not the question was insulting, but the implication that the US, and her forces would plant NBC weapons is insulting.

And who shouted him down?

Backtothemac

Aug 2, 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
BTTM, with all do respect, your history of service and those of your family has nothing to do with the possible deception on the part of the US leadership. No one that I've seen has ever accused you or your family of any type of deception. Many, many people either served in the military or have family members who have done so, but is that a credential necessary to criticize our leaders?

This is not a personal discussion of your honor. I won't and I haven't seen others try to cast aspersions on you. If it makes any difference from an anonymous someone who only is typing words into a computer from thousands of miles away, I respect and value your service.

If I recall my history correctly, British soldiers also died defending Americans at Normandy and many other locations. Perhaps we should be a little more circumspect when talking of the debt owed to America because of our battlefield deaths; it is a series of debts that goes both ways. Pride in the sacrifices made is justifiable, but ignoring the sacrifices of others is not.

Is there a history of deception in US military actions? It does not do a disservice to the memory of all the brave men and women who have served to answer in some cases - yes. The use of the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify the escalation of the Vietnam War is a case where a President, a Democratic one in this example, did just that.

Do I think the US would plant WMD's - NO! It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do because it just might get out. But have leaders ordered incredibly stupid things in the past? YES! The Iran/Contra scandal springs to mind.

The fact that many in this country and throughout the world think that the Bush Adminstration and the Blair government exaggerated claims of the WMD's in Iraq as a way to move us to military action should mean that to restore credibility the search for these weapons should be as tranparent as possible. That propostion does no one's honor any harm.

My point to him was that it could be a personal insult to some Americans and to please be respectful of those that have served, by not making the US sound like a country that would plant NBC weapons, that is all.

Sayhey

Aug 2, 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
My point to him was that it could be a personal insult to some Americans and to please be respectful of those that have served, by not making the US sound like a country that would plant NBC weapons, that is all.

If such an action, heaven forbid, should take place, it would not be done by our country, but by a few individuals. It would be those individuals who would be committing the gravest of insults to America. America is a collection of over 270 million people and all but a small minority, I think we all can agree, would never consider such an action.

Backtothemac

Aug 2, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
If such an action, heaven forbid, should take place, it would not be done by our country, but by a few individuals. It would be those individuals who would be committing the gravest of insults to America. America is a collection of over 270 million people and all but a small minority, I think we all can agree, would never consider such an action.

Not only that, but, how could a small number of people

A. Get 30,000 liters of anthrax to Iraq.
B. 5,000 tons of VX Precurser
C. Scub missiles
D. Nuke parts
E. Boutolism Toxin

See my point. Too many people would have to know about that for it to occur.

Sayhey

Aug 2, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Not only that, but, how could a small number of people

A. Get 30,000 liters of anthrax to Iraq.
B. 5,000 tons of VX Precurser
C. Scub missiles
D. Nuke parts
E. Boutolism Toxin

See my point. Too many people would have to know about that for it to occur.

I don't know that if someone was trying to fake the evidence that they would have to supply all the materials that have been said to be in Saddam's inventory. Still it would be hard to coordinate such a scheme without it getting out.

toontra

Aug 2, 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

And who shouted him down?

You shouted me down. You said It is flamebait, and a massive insult, so please, if that is your TRUE opinion, it may be better kept private.
I repeat, I will not be bullied or shouted down by you, B2TM, or anyone else.

If anyone is to be a judge of flamebait, let it be the mods, not you.

SPG

Aug 2, 2003, 01:07 PM

Someone should do a tally of how many times the US administration has already said that WMD's or chem/bio weapons have been found. Bush in Poland declared that the hydrogen trailers for artillery balloons that came from Britain were mobile biological weapons labs. Obviously they weren't and anyone who had any knowledge of such systems was able to debunk the claim, yet Bush repeated it and then never made any retraction.
This administration is very comfortable making "technically accurate" statements with the intent of planting ideas that are false. Despite BTTM being offended, reasonable people can easily fathom that this administration planting evidence would not be outside the realm of possibility.

SPG

Aug 2, 2003, 01:17 PM

Okay, Just found this...
Kay is now benefiting from his successful efforts to help the Bush administration justify the Iraq war. He was the one who told the government that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna produced a report in 1991 that indicated that Iraq was at the time just six months away from having a bomb. Bush and Blair held a news conference in Crawford, Texas, last September touting Kay's claim, and the US media published it prominently. The media did not verify the allegation by talking to representatives of the IAEA, which would have been worth the investment of a few minutes' time, since such a report by the IAEA simply doesn't exist.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG30Ak01.html

Backtothemac

Aug 2, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by toontra
You shouted me down. You said
I repeat, I will not be bullied or shouted down by you, B2TM, or anyone else.

If anyone is to be a judge of flamebait, let it be the mods, not you.

Whatever. I did not tell you to shut your mouth, I made a suggestion based on how your statement was offensive. As a member, I can say that a statement is offensive, and ask someone to refrain from such statements, as others have with me.

I was not shouting, and I did not say to do it, I made a suggestion.

Sayhey

Aug 2, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by SPG
Someone should do a tally of how many times the US administration has already said that WMD's or chem/bio weapons have been found. Bush in Poland declared that the hydrogen trailers for artillery balloons that came from Britain were mobile biological weapons labs. Obviously they weren't and anyone who had any knowledge of such systems was able to debunk the claim, yet Bush repeated it and then never made any retraction.
This administration is very comfortable making "technically accurate" statements with the intent of planting ideas that are false. Despite BTTM being offended, reasonable people can easily fathom that this administration planting evidence would not be outside the realm of possibility.

I don't trust some of the people in this administration as far as I can spit. Which is not very far, if your interested. Still, being suspicious is one thing and asserting that they will plant evidence of WMDs (which you didn't do, SPG) is quite another. I only make the point in order to say that the burden of proof will be on the accusers.

I think the call for the UN to bring back its own monitors is what needs to be accomplished now. The truth of what happened to WMDs, that all agree at least at one time existed in Iraq, should be the goal of everyone. The best way for that to happen so that all will believe the conclusion is for the UN to step in.

pseudobrit

Aug 2, 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
As an American, I find it massively insulting that you would automatically assume that we would plant NBC weapons in Iraq. That won't happen. That is so far out there, that like I said, it is laughable. What from the past makes you think that we would do something like that? NOTHING.

Right. The American government has never done anything wrong with regards to international conflicts *coughGulf of Tonkincough*

It is flamebait, and a massive insult, so please, if that is your TRUE opinion, it may be better kept private.

It's not flamebait, he simply has no faith in Bush to do the right things. I don't either.

You're overreacting and taking this way too personally. People are mad at Bush, not YOU. If an attack on him is an attack on you, then you have some pretty thin skin.

Remember that there are people here that post from all over the world, and we have to respect each other.

Bull****. Just because people live in a nation doesn't mean everyone has to respect the leadership of every nation. Certain members grew up under communist dictatorships. I guess we should respect their former governments and not say anything bad about communism anymore.

My Great Uncle died on the shores of Normandy defending YOUR country. My Grandfather spilled his blood on Iwa Jima. I personally have served this county, and so has every male in my family but one. And my sister on top of that. You assumtion that the US would plant NBC weapons is a personal insult to every military member that has fought with honor and courage in the history of our country. So please, think before you accuse.

Everyone's had family that's served. It doesn't excuse whomever sits in the seat of power in this country from criticism.

Having family who served and suffered for freedom, I'm twice as mad at the Bush administration for taking the United States' proud military history and using it to wage aggressive war.

And no, you never said that they would definately plant NBC weapons, but you seriously implied it.

Quit freaking out over implications regarding the Bush administration. The president is always going to be the target for criticism and nothing you can say can excuse them from it. They have to handle it on their own.

I find your tone very self-righteous and you need to knock off this whole act of indignation.

Backtothemac

Aug 2, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit

Everyone's had family that's served. It doesn't excuse whomever sits in the seat of power in this country from criticism.

Having family who served and suffered for freedom, I'm twice as mad at the Bush administration for taking the United States' proud military history and using it to wage aggressive war.

Quit freaking out over implications regarding the Bush administration. The president is always going to be the target for criticism and nothing you can say can excuse them from it. They have to handle it on their own.

I find your tone very self-righteous and you need to knock off this whole act of indignation.
Ok, I wasn't saying not to say things about Bush. All I said was that I felt that it was an insult to me as an American the implication that he was making. That is it.

My tone is not self-righteous.

SPG

Aug 2, 2003, 03:27 PM

One more...
As described by government officials and their families, the United States has used aggressive tactics to find and question key Iraqi scientists. Amir Saadi, Iraq's 65-year-old chief liaison with United Nations weapons inspectors since last year, has been held incommunicado since his voluntary surrender in Baghdad to U.S. military police more than three months ago, according to his wife, Helma.

Just hours before his April 12 surrender, Saadi gave a television interview to a German television reporter during which he said, "There were no weapons of mass destruction, and time will bear me out." It is the same sentiment he sent to U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix in a message that arrived at U.N. headquarters on March 19 ...

His wife said she suspects her husband is being held out of sight because "he is telling the truth. . . . They have realized there are no weapons of mass destruction and the quagmire they have created. They want to hold someone as a scapegoat."

Washington Post
July 31, 2003