The New York Times has once again used lawyerly language and subterfuge to alter the debate on Saddam's WMDs. This is from today's editorial - The Administration's Scramble

Mr. Rumsfeld told Congress that it was "possible, but not likely" that Iraq had not had weapons of mass destruction at the start of the war. He suggested that weapons might have been shipped to another country, destroyed just before the invasion or buried somewhere in Iraq. Those possibilities have largely been discounted by Dr. Kay.

Yet here is a quote from a January 2004 interview with Dr. Kay as reported in the Times-owned International Herald Tribune:

‘‘But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.’’

How the words "we know" turns into "largely discounted" I'm not exactly sure. I think what the Times wants to say is that we are discounting Dr. Kay's statements since we do not have exact details as to the WMDs that went to Syria.