Kay made some published statements of optimism concerning the imminent finding of evidence concerning the WMDs, along with statements that his group had already found evidence of a cover-up. His "background" tells us how much credence we should put in those statements.
------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] Background of David Kay > > > On 8/5/03, k hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Interesting that when it was announced that > > David Kay . . . was hired . . . to look for weapons > > in Iraq there is zilch about questionable parts > > of his background . . . . [that] he has . . . no > > training as a scientist . . . [and] admitted in > > effect making a Faustian bargain with US > > intelligence sources. He was fired by Blix and > > consequently vilified him. > > http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid= > 2728 > > If he verifiably finds or meaningfully helps find > whatever it is that also verifiably is confirmed to be > "WMD" (however defined), what difference will his > "backgound" have made? And to whatever if any exent > that he will not have done this, why is it "[i]nteresting" > what his "background" may be (WHATEVER his > "background" is)? >
