Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest donaltopablo

Recently quit weapons inspector speaks

33 posts in this topic

I think David Kay speaks the closest thing to the trutht to date about what's really going on with the WMD search. I think many American's believe this is the case, that the intellegence community was mistaken at the level of Iraq WMD program (although there is plenty more searching I'm sure to be done). But I think it illustrates misinformation passed on and Bush's over dependance on WMD as a reason to go to war (although the other reasons, which I tend to agree with more, have come out now that WMD haven't been found).

Although to some extent I take what he says with a grain of salt as well, since it intends to write a book. However, he seems to have the least to gain by his statements from any of the people who have spoken out so far, which gives more reassurance that prehaps there is more truth in his statements than agenda.

Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs

Former chief U.S. inspector faults intelligence agencies

Monday, January 26, 2004 Posted: 4:34 AM EST (0934 GMT)

David Kay says his investigation showed that Iraqi officials "had an intention to continue to pursue their WMD activities."

(CNN) -- Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had.

"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."

It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said.

"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.

"It is not a political 'gotcha' issue. It is a serious issue of 'How you can come to a conclusion that is not matched in the future?'"

Other countries' intelligence agencies shared the U.S. conclusion that Iraq had stockpiled such weapons, though most disagreed with the United States about how best to respond.

Powell: Violations justified war

Asked if Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States at the time of the invasion, Kay said, "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat."

Although his team concluded that Iraq did not possess large amounts of weapons of mass destruction ready for use, that does not necessarily mean it posed no imminent threat, he said. "That is a political judgment, not a technical judgment."

Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the administration's moves Sunday. "Military action was justified by Iraq's violation of 12 years of U.N. resolutions," he said in an interview with First Channel Russia during a visit to Moscow.

"Iraq had the intent to have weapons of mass destruction and they had previously used weapons of mass destruction. They had programs to develop such weapons," Powell said.

"And what we were trying to find out was what inventory they actually had, and we are still examining that question."

Saddam Hussein was given the opportunity to divulge what his country was doing but chose not to do so, which resulted in the U.S.-led campaign to oust him, Powell said.

"And the world is better off, the Iraqi people are better off, because Saddam Hussein is gone," Powell said. "And we will continue to make sure we find all elements of his weapons of mass destruction programs and whatever weapons there might be."

Powell made the Bush administration's case that Saddam's regime possessed such weapons in a presentation to the U.N. Security Council last year.

Other failures

The discovery that Iran and Libya had nuclear programs also appears to have caught intelligence agencies by surprise, Kay said.

The Iranian program was uncovered not by intelligence agencies but by Iranian defectors, he said.

Libya's program contained a number of international clues, such as a connection to Pakistan and plants in Malaysia. "It was, in many ways, the biggest surprise of all, and it was missed," Kay said.

Last June, when he was appointed to lead the U.S. effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kay expressed confidence they would be found.

Despite his group's failure to unearth such weapons, those predictions have not embarrassed him, he said.

"They're coming back to haunt me in the sense of why could we all be so wrong? ... It's an issue of the capabilities of one's intelligence service to collect valid, truthful information."

Kay said he would not submit a final report on his work in Iraq, since the task of searching for weapons will continue, led by Charles Duelfer, a longtime weapons inspector who replaces Kay as the new CIA special adviser. (Full story)

Despite not finding any WMD, Kay said his team found that the Iraqi senior leadership "had an intention to continue to pursue their WMD activities. That they, in fact, had a large number of WMD-related activities."

Kay predicted investigators would find that Iraqi scientists were "working on developing weapons or weapons concepts that they had not moved into actual production."

Kay alleges Syria connection

Kay also raised the possibility -- one he first discussed in a weekend interview with "The Sunday Telegraph" of London -- that clues about banned weapons programs might reside across Iraq's western border.

"There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved," Kay said.

But, he said, "the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve this issue."

Kay acknowledged that the truth might never be revealed. Widespread looting in Baghdad after the invasion destroyed many government records. "There's always going to be unresolved ambiguity here."

Kay said he resigned after his resources were diverted to other work from the exclusive goal of searching for unconventional weapons.

"It's very hard to run organizations with multiple missions, particularly if one half is controlled by the Defense Department and one half is controlled by the CIA. ... I thought that was the wrong thing to do."

Kay said he would like to write a book dealing with the issue of proliferation and intelligence.

"I'm not doing a Paul O'Neill," he said, referring to the former Bush treasury secretary who was the primary source for "The Price of Loyalty," a recent book that said the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq almost from the time Bush took office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


This just supports my theory that Bush's war against Saddam Hussean was for personal reasons and did not have anything to do with any threats, perceived or otherwise, against the United States. Over 500 Americans and countless Iraqis have losts their lives as a result.

Interesting comment monsoon. Although I can understand your feeling on the war in Iraq, I'm not sure I understand what in this article brings you to that conclusion though, or as you say, supports your theory.

The article seems to go out of its way to point out that it seemed to be misguided intel that lead to the war, not personal vendetta by Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush picked the people who provided that Intel. data. Easy enough to pick parties who are going to say what you want them to say.

That's a pretty big assumption, even more so from this article.

Now obviously Clinton didn't feel compelled to jump into war with Iraq, but I've seen time and time again recounts of Clinton stating his belief in WMD and Saddam's evil intent.

Also, beyond lies about the supposed WMD, your now implying that Bush conspired with CIA/Intel departments to provide false information, some of which was considered to be very old. On top of that, if I recall a large portion of the CIA, including it's top officials have been in office much longer than Bush has been around. This is the American government, so I'm not saying that is out of the question, but I would say it's grabbing for straws at this point.

What does sound resonable, in my mind. Was that Bush always saw Saddam as a target during his administration. I think he knew at some point (as did Clinton) that it would come to a head. With the inspectors gone from Iraq, 9/11 and the fear of what terriorists might do with WMD, intel stating that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, common hatred for American between the two, unfinished business with his dad, and of course, an opportunity to persue the war, because of the attacks on 9/11, Bush choose to persue the war. Again, I'm not saying I agree (in fact, I disagree for the most part with the way we went into the war... but I know someone who disagrees with my thoughts will try to make me out to be some Bush lover without the disclaimer.)

I've yet to see much where the person doing the accusing didn't have something to gain (selling a book, running on opposite party) really come out and have anything worthwhile showing that the Bush administration completely conspired, in an absolute lie to enter the war. Misguided, and pushed too far, absolutely. Completely conspired? Not sure I've seen enough information from netrual sources that believe that one yet. Honestly, I think that's a lot anger talking. I think people are so mad that we entered the war, and ignored domestic agenda that the best way to illustrate that anger is a conspiracy. I think it's something that has commonly appeared for quiet some time that people turn unknowns and anger into conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just supports my theory that Bush's war against Saddam Hussean was for personal reasons and did not have anything to do with any threats, perceived or otherwise, against the United States. Over 500 Americans and countless Iraqis have losts their lives as a result.

But just consider how many lives would have been lost had we not gone to war with Iraq. The regime in Iraq pretty much held up a constant murder rate of their own people just because they felt like it, not to mention all of the torturing that went on, etc. I think in the grand scheme of things it was the best decision, though maybe not short-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Neowe should not be the police of the world. I feel bad for the people of Iraq, but I don't agree with spending billions (hundreds of billions) and asking Americans to give up their lives in order to change that fact.

I wish if we did choose to get involved in country, politically and militarily, that we were a little more even about how we distributed our force. Heckles made a point a while back, in Europe or Middle East we will get involved, in Africa we seem be hestiatant to get involved.

But, I think we should at least act whenever dicators commit genocide and threaten their neighbors and the general stability of the world. I think WWII tought us the lesson of sitting idle. Do we ned war in every case? No, I think we've solved several crisis without resorting to complete war or over throwing governments. However, I do think it is our interest to persue these types of leaders until the issue is resolved, and in some extreme cases probably should include going to war.

I don't like seeing American and civilian deaths, I don't believe in the macho kill everyone attitude. But I do believe that problems left unaddressed and unchecked can eventually become a more serious problem then simply ignoring them and leaving it be.

I've always felt that we were in the right for removing Saddam, because of Saddam's actions. In 91 would have been the correct time to do it. I believe we could have gone about the war better, and certainly do not agree with Bush on how he choose to persue the war, his reasons and how little international support he was able to gain. But I'm with Neo, that we should act and in some cases, the cost in lives, American and civilian, is far better than the alternative, which is continue to let someone rule, kill, and destroy the future of yet another generation.

When this war first started I had this discussion with someone. I boiled my feeling down to this. I tried to imagine, what it would like to be an average, non-Baathist Iraqi. I asked myself if I would be willing to die, in an accidental bombing, if I knew that it mean freedom for my family. I believe I would. I support the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It seems the wrong decision for short-term to do what we did, but think about this...what if Americans were in Iraq visiting and their people just decided to bomb them for no apparent reason...nothing kept them from doing just that. Granted, not much is keeping that from happening now, but with the main cause out of rule things should progressively get better. I hate knowing that hundreds of Americans died for this, but aren't we all in this world together? Should we let boundaries separate us? Just because folks choose to live in England or are born in Iraq does not mean that we can't lend a hand in helping those who need it the most. After all, if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor and we never joined the war, would the Hitler and his army killed many more than he did? Would the world be different than it is today? Being right doesn't mean everyone will agree with you, sometimes you know you're right and most everyone disagrees with you, but being right is all opinion until it's actually proven that you did the right thing...and even sometimes then folks disagree and that the action eventually taken was wrong. I believe I'd rather die than have 10 more individuals anywhere in the world tortured for no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree...I think both needed to be taken care of and Iraq was chosen for the reasons above, but regardless it did need to be done sooner or later. I think it could have been handled better but I do think that it needed to be done. Now North Korea...that's some scary stuff! I think we'd start something really major if we messed with North Korea without being careful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we are doing absolutely nothing about North Korea whose citizens are starving and live much worse lives than those in Iraq. So this kinda disproves the argument that we went to Iraq over concerns of the average Iraqi citizens life.

Instead we went for two reasons. 1. It was personal for Bush. & 2. Iraq has a relatively limitless supply of oil. This was a predetermined war for the Bush camp even before he was elected.

I'm not sure the political climate is the same in N Korea as it is in Iraq, that makes it considerably more difficult. You want to talk about a war with a lot of dead on both sides, that would be it.

Also think there is another point you could make metroiboi. See, besides Heckles trying to point out how many people have been killed in Africa, which I don't debate we should be more active in helping to stop, Saddam still holds the title of the only current foreign leader to actually have invaded 2 neighboring countries, and used WMD on one of them, and used WMD on themselves. N Korea is about self presveration, not starting a war. They use big talk to try to get what they want, but at the end of the day they know by invading a neighbor country, or use of WMD they stand to loose their only ally and loose their country.

Saddam on the other hand, had nothing to loose any more. No allies to be concerned with, and to some extent, knew he would eventually loose his seat in power. This makes him, just by human nature, far more of an immediate threat to at least his neighbors.

I think this point is masked and overlooked by most anti-war thinkers. But I think it's REALLY worth taking note. There are poor, starving countries around the world. There are countries we need to play an active role in. But how many actually have rulers who have done what Saddam did?

Again, I don't disagree that some of Bush's motivates and timing were not very questionable. But I don't think liberating Iraq in the end, was a negative thing. I think it's a good thing, just like liberating Afganistan was a good thing.

I think the big difference between our thinking, monsoon, is your arguments generally boil down to how Bush himself got us into the war, and I don't think you seperate the war itself from that. You may still oppose the war, but you arguing points about Bush motivates for the war to least myself, who is not necessarily a supporter of Bush or the way we got into the war, but the value and accomplishments of the war itself.

Besides, look at Libya. You can't tell me they gave up their WMD for no good reason, they had to be scared crapless that they could be on Bush's WMD cleanup campaign. Even Iran recently has made some positive moves with it's WMD program and has even bowed to internal pressures regarding their banning of potential parliment seats. In the middle east, the biggest mistake we made was not persuing a war in Iraq, was not forcing Isreali and Palestine to end their war, which is a top concern amongst arabs. I believe if we had accomplished this first, or at least put it on the right track, we would have seen considerably more support from the Middle Eastern countries for the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. There were NUMEROUS intelligence officers that came forward to challenge Bush - and he put the sock in their mouths.

Paul O'Neill. A REPUBLICAN. Has recently come out with information in his book about Bush's dislike of Iraq even before 9/11! And he was ousted from the administration for not agreeing 100% with the president - particularly on the President's plans to deficit spend for this war.

So, there is substantial real evidence - not hear-say or assumptions going on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. There were NUMEROUS intelligence officers that came forward to challenge Bush - and he put the sock in their mouths.

Paul O'Neill. A REPUBLICAN. Has recently come out with information in his book about Bush's dislike of Iraq even before 9/11! And he was ousted from the administration for not agreeing 100% with the president - particularly on the President's plans to deficit spend for this war.

So, there is substantial real evidence - not hear-say or assumptions going on here.

I completely disagree on the following basis:

Paul O'Neil had motivation to speak out against the president. 1. The media attention surrounding is comments feel in line with the book he was promoting. This means he had a considerable financial interest. 2. And there is the bitterness factor, since he was dropped from the Presidents staff. Bitter ex-employees are rarely trustworthy sources of information.

Secondly, Paul O'Neil only produced one document that I saw. That document was titled: Miltiary plan for post Saddam Iraq. Not miltiary plan to invade Iraq, not miltiary Plan to over throw Iraq as a unliteral action, as an attempt to reduce oil prices in American, get reelected, and line Cheney's pockets. Again, I make reference to following facts: 1. Previous presidents stated their thoughts on the fears of Saddam Hussein and the need/desire/benefits to removing Saddam, even if they choose not to persue the same level of action Bush did. 2. Believe it or not, right now the President is aware of basic miltiary plans on how to go to war with and/or nuke the following countries: China, North Korea, Iraq (at the time), Iran, and if I recall properly, even Russia? There was a huge deal about this information being leaked and the Bush administrator had considerable work to patch relationships with Russia and China when it made the news. Having military plans for actions for rivals or enemies is not that uncommon.

I have a hard time taking a lot of stock in Paul O'Neil facts, or worse yet, his personal twist on the situation, since he had much to gain from bashing the President. Plus, there are still assumptions being made. This "hard" evidence hardly proves that Bush motivation was completely made, totally and willfully full of lies, and based on personal interests over everything else. As I've said, I believe many of these items could easily have been factors, but I haven't seen any evidence, only the words of a few people who have something to gain by discrediting the President. Therefore, these are assumptions.

Lastly, certainly the article above does not "support" either theory, other than making link assumptions that Bush had the intel community lie. Which of course, the article makes no reference too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, seems that the BBC, not the British government did the doctoring... Again, just makes me stop and think a little longer when someone or the news comes out with some new information about how Britian and the US doctored up the intel on Iraq, instead of just being bad intel.

I think it's obvious that Iraq could not have deplpyed WMD in 45 minutes now that the war is over. But it seems the BBC tried to play that Blair knew. Now it seems the BBC was just as wrong as the British government, and it's costing someone their job.

Blair Cleared in Kelly Flap; BBC Chairman Resigns

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

LONDON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I disagree on the basis that you are going to side with this war unless Bush himself comes out against it.

:D

But on another level - according to the news today, Bush is planning to reorganize the military in Iraq and is replacing the central commander (or whatever the official name is); a sure sign that their plans are failing for the peace-from-hell that its become.

Secondly, we are already talking about more strikes in Afghanistan. You know, that country we pretty much abandoned which was the real terrorist stronghold.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe.. Its going to take plenty more troops for this, but if the Osama catch comes right before the Election, it will be a political coup for Bush for sure.

But in November I better be in Toronto, that's all I gotta say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree on the basis that you are going to side with this war unless Bush himself comes out against it.

That's funny. I don't even like Bush.

Maybe if the liberals came out in support of the war....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not like Bush, but you support the war regardless. That was my point.

monsoon - you know as well as I do that the BBC is a public broadcast network, not a government-ran service. It gets its money from a mandatory TV tax in Britain, and its content very much goes against British government policy from time to time, and it praises it where it sees fit.

There is a difference between centrally censored government dictated TV like China's CCTV network, and independent public broadcast networks that is owned by the public.

The difference between public broadcasting and commercial broadcasting is that when public broadcasting has proper funding and does not need to seek corporate sponsorship (like our PBS must do to stay afloat), then you get more independent broadcasting.

Now if its a dictated government network, like CCTV, which gets censored (read in the Debates section about "Friends" being censored on CCTV, for example), then its not independent at all.

The fact is: British independent television has far less censorship then even here in the United States. Canada does as well, I was watching "The National" with Peter Mainsbridge on the CBC last night via Newsworld International (ch. 366 on DirecTV); the news broadcast had a canadian soldier saying the word "fudge" on a major newscast. It wasn't taken out of context, it wasn't thrown into the newscast for ratings. It was just there - because the soldier was speaking his mind. And they broadcasted it - rightfully so.

That would not happen in the USA. It'd be censored to look all perfect.

So if you think we have the most independent media system, think again. Its more B.S. we are fed everyday. "Oh, we live in the freest, best democracy on earth." Yeah.. Right. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in other nations with elected governments - they also have commercial television. Britain's number one network is ITV - you can see their newscasts on Newsworld International as well.

In Canada, the Global Network as well as CTV are the number one secondary networks besides the CBC.

Of all the visitors on the forum, I'm unsure who knows/doesn't know the setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is the right place to speak up about political issues :) So, let's start with one announcement: I AM NOT REPUBLICAN. So, if anyone reads what I have to say, please clear your mind of any "prejudice". Whatever I am going to say comes from my own research only. I won't provide quotes, bibliographies, or any sources, simply because I do not have the time to go back to find and list them all here. However, everything I mention here is the sum of information coming from many different, and sometimes clashing, sides and please feel confident that I won't be making up anything. In fact, I will avoid any piece of information that came from "fanatics".

First of all, the whole anti-Bush attitude doesn't help anyone. The arguments are old and overused... I dare to say abused. People have EVERY right to dislike, or even hate Bush, his administration and his backers, but when we talk about political motives we should go beyond personal feelings. That said, I have to ask the anti-Bush crowd one question: Why did Clinton attack the Serbs? Before you move forward with an answer, think carefully because the answer is not as obvious. In fact, I will provide it for you: Uranium. That's right, Kossovo has lots of Uranium and the US felt that we could put our hands on it before the Russians do; the Russians, however managed to get there first. During that war, we killed [accidently] innocent civilians and did more damage than intended. THAT, my friends, was the main reason for ANY anti-American sentiment in the Balkans in the last 10 years. Oh, by the way, the CIA and the military advised Clinton against that involvement, but the latter wanted to play the policeman. Did I mention Sudan, Somalia and Persian Gulf (almost led to a war with Iraq)? So, let's keep Bush out of this... at least for now.

During Clinton's years, Iraqi agents were greatly involved in actions against the United States, on US soil. Namely, the first attack in the twins was masterminded by an Iraqi agent, with several other Iraqis being part of that faction. One Palestinean who was involved in that operation had made 46 calls to Iraq during the month before the incident alone. Luckily, we did not mourn the death of thousands, but who do you think these terrorists worked for? That's right... Saddam and Bin Laden. It was a co-operation between two powers. The second time (9/11) the Iraqis stayed out of this, not because they didn't want to be involved, but because they couldn't. The US Intelligence must had done something right. However, the US Intelligence was already outsmarted, thanks to the weakening that went through during the Clinton's administration era.

A Democrat senator (or was he a representative? I don't remember) who led a part of the investigation for the Oklahoma City bombing made [back then] a connection of Teri Nichols to Iraqi agents. Evidently, Teri Nichols visited Indonesia, before the bombing, were he allegendly met with Iraqi agents. How much he influence McVeigh, and what exactly he discussed with the Iraqis, I am not in a position to know, but the report was burried deeply, and nobody bothered to investigate more... at least in public.

So, Bush comes to power and says "I want to get those beotchs (Saddam and Bin Laden) out of the picture. His administration starts to investigate different possibilities, and before we make a move, 9/11 happens. Anybody thought that this move was masterminded by amateurs, within a few months? No, gentlemen... this was planned at least 2-3 years before it happened. Oops, Clinton era again!!! Since we tend to forget the thousands of people who died from these attacks (no, I am not suggesting that we don't care), and only feel the financial burden (billions of dollars in damages, low morale, fear of travelling, loss of investments, costs of rebuilding the US Intelligence and Security infrastructure, etc.), I will say that the cost of the war against Iraq is miniscule when compared to the cost of the attacks against the twins. Hitting the twin towers meant terrorism, and that can be dealt with domestically; attacking the Pentagon meant war against the US, and that can be solved in ANY way the US military dims necessary. Whether some people like it, or not, this is the way things work at a global level. This is how wars begin and this is how hundreds, if not thousands of people lose their life. I have friends who were dropped behind enemy lines during the first war in the Persian Gulf. If these people were in favor of the war, I do not see how people who didn't participate at all can scream against it. Really, we are all safe back here, for as long as our military remains determined and strong. No one will take us seriously if we chicken out every time we have to take action.

Whether weapons of mass destruction were found, or not, it is not the time to critisize our president for it. Sure, I would have felt better about the war in Iraq if the US Intelligence had found something, and it frightens me that they didn't, but I prefer that over the US government planting those... as many of Bush's opponents said, especially overseas. It is no longer amusing when people come up with all sorts of conspiracies to justify their own hatred against a person, be that a president, or another public figure. This is not the time to become fanatic; we have the right to vote and I am sure we'll all exercise it accordingly when the time comes. As long as we remain responsible citizens and don't spread lies to other people, trying to manipulate them, we have every right to cast a vote... for, or against someone. Media tends to provide incorrect interpretations and I am really surprised at the low level of journalism, no matter who is the president. Sure, it is much worse in other countries, but there is no excuse for low-level journalism here. The latter is mostly responsible for spreading misinformation, or even supressing the truth. I can trust my Military and Intelligence community far more than I can trust the yellow press, and if the former says it is time to get into a war, I will put more faith in them than anyone else. Those who understand the military well know that the moral standards in the US Army are very high as compared to most (if not all) other armies. That by itself makes me respect the military's position even more. If Powell finds reasons to support the war in Iraq, I am very inclined to take his opinion seriously, as I strongly feel that Powell is a good man. Hell, even Edwards supported the war, along with many Democrats.

By the way, did someone mention BBC? You gotta be kidding me. I was listening to the BBC throughout the war and all I can say is that they are a bunch of clowns. I had that impression before even the war in Iraq, as I've heard MANY stupid statements made by them, for non-US issues. BBC is a clueless, anti-American network, so please let's not even go that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.