Will Rove release the Kay report on the day Clark announces?

[mot78]

my source for concern.....

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030809.shtml

Rove fears Clark, and by releasing Kay's report on his announcement day, he completely drives Clark off the front pages, while simultaneously under-cutting Clark's credibility (at least in the eyes of Faux et al).

[MuseRider]

1. It won't keep him

out of the limelight. Perhaps for a day but this will be big news and Rove will fail.

[StandWatie]

2. it doesn't exist

The last thing these theives want to do is reopen the WMD can of worms. No one would believe them by now anyway and since it's already left the news cycle they can just keep on message that Iraq is "the frontline on the War on Some Terrorists" and be safe.

[Raenelle]

7. Good point. They do seem to think they can make things go away

by ignoring them.

[StandWatie]

8. the bad thing is they can..

[diplomats]

11. The Iraq mess has moved way beyond the WMD issue

now. No report by Kay can change the deteriorating situation on the ground there.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. If they do exist

that is the kind of information they will release in Sept. or Oct. of 2004. Now would be too soon. I think at this point, WMD is a moot subject anyway.

[FARAFIELD]

4. THE GENERAL PUBLIC WONT BUY IT

Despite what any report says the public wont buy a word of it. Everyone will wonder why it just wasnt reported earlier. In fact any short term "GAIN" (i.e. talk radio saying WEVE FOUND IT!) would be lost as the administration gets bogged down in the details of why they werent realeased earlier. Any informed voter knows that if there had been proof found it would have been trumpeted. That fact alone is the best indication that whatever is said wouldnt be believed.

[elfin]

5. Very possible - hadn't

thought of that one. However, finally, the media is a bit more scrutinizing and we can hope they debunk or downplay it and play up Clark's entry.

[Donna Zen]

6. august 9'th

The article is from the 9'th, do I remember something about Kay not finding anything that appeared in LBN? Yes, they probably have some "crap" to throw; however, Clark never said Saddam had nothing. In fact, Clark, citing the nature of Saddam's neighborhood, a place where chemical weapons are the poor-man's nukes, thought there was a high probability that Saddam had a stash. That said, since Clark worked with the intelligence in '98 and Zinni on the targets, he said that most of the weapons were gone. His point consistently has been: there was no immenent threat; this was an elective war; Iraq undermines the effort to neutralize Al Quida. Nevertheless, if rove wants to lie about Clark's position (hahahhahah! of course he'll lie!) then he may try with the weaker-than-shit Kay report.

Note to Bob no-facts: Hmmmm? I seem to recall that you opposed the war.

[salin]

9. wouldn't worry about being drowned out on Faux

that small demographic isn't likely to vote for any democrat. Not a threat to Clark.

Also it is interesting that after drumming up "leaks" for almost a month about the Kay report - that there has been no discussion of a couple of weeks. Bush didn't even confidently refer to it in his speech last week.

Are they getting cold feet (eg recognize it will be torn to shreds in teh international press in hours, and thus dropped by the US press (the US press rarely reports on the discrediting of the bush's propoganda - but they do drop the promotion of the propoganda)?

Or are they so supremely confident that the public will lap it up that they have gone stealth for maximum results?

[VolcanoJen]

10. More on the September Surprise - Yes, and no

This article agrees with mot78's hypothesis:

David Kay's September Surprise

However, I think that Condi, Powell and Rummy's comments earlier in the week were far more telling. Each spent a good deal of time lowering expectations of Kay's forthcoming report while they were making the rounds on Sunday's political talk shows.

From Maureen Dowd's latest column:

We're Not Happy Campers

Mr. Rumsfeld, who was so alarmed about Saddam's W.M.D. before the war, is now so nonchalant that he said he did not even bother to ask David Kay, who runs the C.I.A.'s search for W.M.D. in Iraq, what progress he'd made when meeting with him in Iraq last week.

"I have so many things to do at the Department of Defense," Rummy told The Washington Post.

Asked at the press club why our intelligence analysts did not predict the extent of Iraq's decayed infrastructure, Rummy said dismissively, "They were worrying about more important things." Yeah, like how to get Dick Cheney off their backs.

And, according to recent news "leaks," all indications point to the fact that Kay's report will only provide the "mother lode" of documents supporting allegations of Hussein's weapons programs. Programs, schmograms!! Americans really do know the difference between a piece of paper and a smoking gun.

Iraq WMD Search: Coming up short

A massive CIA investigation, led by former U.N. weapons inspector Kay, is turning up only what former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein planned — not what he produced.

“He’s not finding the kinds of things the administration expected to find — large quantities of biological and chemical weapons or evidence that they were destroyed prior to the war,” said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector.

Not worried at all,
Jennifer :-)

[caledesi]

12. The thugs don't even want to touch the dreaded WMD word

for a long time now, my guess is that the Kay report will be BS.

The Kay Report will mention "weapons programs"...<yeah, those bits of paper really scare me>

There is no there there - no legs to this story.

Hello General Clark!