Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq

No sh*t, Sherlock!

OK, BBS Bush-supporters...you may commence with your spin!

 

Why does David Kay hate America?

 

Check Syria.

 

If Bush wins in November, that will be on the agenda just in time for the 2006 mid-terms.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38494-2003Dec29.html

Frontline: Chasing Saddam's Weapons

Jane Corbin
BBC Reporter
Friday, January 23, 2004; 11:00 AM


With the credibility of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair at stake, BBC reporter Jane Corbin takes viewers inside the high-stakes search for Saddam Hussein?s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Through exclusive access to top-secret locations and key U.S. officials leading the hunt, including David Kay, Frontline reveals new details about what the search has uncovered and questions whether the investigation's final results will justify the White House's call for war.



Corbin was online Friday, Jan. 23 at 11 a.m. ET, to discuss Frontline's investigation into the search for WMD in Iraq.

"Chasing Saddam's Weapons" airs Thursday, Jan. 22 at 9 p.m. ET (check local listings).

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

washingtonpost.com: Good morning Jane, and thank you for joining us today. You seem to have been given unprecedented access to the Iraq Survey Group and their somewhat frustrated hunt for weapons of mass destruction. How did you get that access?

Jane Corbin: Well I've been covering this story since 1989 and I've made a number of programs. I exposed the supergun -- that could fire weapons into space and got to know a lot of the inspectors over the years and when the war happened and they set a group up to look for weapons, David Kay was the head of that group and it was one of the factors that allowed us to follow the progress over the coming weeks and months.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: You had several discussions with David Kay, on camera, about his group's work in Iraq and his assertions just before the start of the war that Iraq did indeed still possess weapons of mass destruction. How do you view him -- as a political creature or an earnest inspector?



David Kay, (Live Online, Dec. 16, 2002)



Also, could you compare your impressions of Kay and Hans Blix?

Jane Corbin: Well, I think that David Kay was a professional inspector. He led the hunt in 1991 for UNSCOM -- so he's very serious. His background shows that. In the run up to the war, he said those things, I think due to his experience over the years. He would talk about Saddam's habit to cheat and retreat. They worked for many long years and had to leave in 1998 and Saddam must've seen that as a sign that the U.N. wasn't serious in sticking to resolutions. He was convinced they existed. But as we know, the intelligence put forward before the war was not based on reality. There was a mindset in the intel community that weapons would be found, but the reality is somewhat different.

Well, Blix was always much more cautious. He said it was conceivable that they had WMD and never had any documentation to prove it, though. The absence of proof, he said, didn't mean they did exist. Kay's mindset was more definite before the war. He did believe they did exist and was much more open to persuasion than Blix.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Bush made reference to WMD related activities in the State of the Union speech. Does this mean he is backing off his claim that Iraq was an imminent threat?

Jane Corbin: Well, before the war it was very clear that the message was that Iraq was an imminent threat. That's very different from the language we're hearing now. We charted this difference starting last year. Before the war we heard Cheney saying Iraq had rebuilt its nuclear program. No evidence of that has been found.

I note the other day Cheney again said these weapons would be found. THe way one has to look at it is that there's an amount of spin put on it.

_______________________


.
.
.

So Kay was convinced they had them going in, saw the evidence and changed his mind.

 

I wish search was active. Someone on the pro-war side here (might have been treeman, but I'm not sure) said that if WMD's weren't found by the end of 2003 they would change their position (admit they were wrong or misled, stop posting, something like that). I'm not inclined to hold anyone to that sort of thing, but I wish I could remember who it was.

 

What this doesn't mention is that Kay was:

A) One of the biggest proponents for the invasion of Iraq based on the threat of WMD pre-war, having gone on national television numerous timesstating them as fact.

B) The man who initially dropped the ball on many earlier WMD 'finds', most notably the vans that treeman, johnheath and apparently Dick Cheney put so much faith in.

C) The man often sen as responsible for changing the verbiage outlining what US troops were searching for in Iraq as a means of justifying the war...from Stockpiles of WMDs to WMDs to WMD programs, to evidence of WMD progams to evidence for the capacity for WMD programs to the evidence for the intent to develop a WMD program to violations of UN 1441.

Oh, hell, I'll just repeat my post from another thread:

 

It was johnheath. treeman refused to give a specific timetable, and kept saying they might be in Iraq.

 

Iraq should read Syria.

 

LOL!


"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"

 

I think Senator Lieberman said it nicely in a New Hampshire speech where he says we did find WMD:

"Saddam Hussein is the weapon of mass destruction."

I couldn't agree more. As soon as the international attention left Iraq, what do you think good old Saddam would be doing? Could it be re-developing his programs as covertly as possible with millions upon millions of oil money at his disposal? I think so. That guy would be hanging over our head's for years to come. We would always be pre-occupied with him? Of course, we're always pre-occupied(or should I say occupied) with Iraq now. I think I would rather worry about an Iraq without Saddam.

 

Number of years Saddam had WMDs according to the most conservative reports: 6.

Number of years Saddam had WMDs according to less conservative reports: 11

Number of US led invasions of Iraq during that time: 2

Number of Iraqi attacks on the US, using WMDs or not during that time: 0

Degree to which US intelligence estimated Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the US, even if he has WMDs: 0

 

What about the degree of instability(with Saddam in power) in the middle east and impacting Israel which impacts us as well?

Don't worry, though. I'm not justifying how it all went down. I'm just saying I feel better about him not being in power. I think he was a WoMD in the middle east. What guarantees do we have about future containment with him in power if we didn't act?

 

you're stretching the point. GW1 was aimed at Kuwait and if we "invaded" Iraq that time it incidental to kicking them out of Kuwait. remember, the "road to baghdad was wide open" according to schwarzkopf, and we didn't go. all thing considered, it probably would've been better if we had...

 

How does something that impacts Israel by extension impact the US as well?

How much of the region's "instability" is directly related to Israel's internal policies?

 

Kay is a liberal b*stard.

 

Israel is in no different position today than it was with Saddam in power. They can't have a one state solution - otherwise they are just another apartheid state, and they are no closer to any start of Palestinian state solution either.

It's a bit early to call on Iraq being stable. The average male in Iraq is much better off. How long that continues after we pull out in the year is up in the air - we stayed in Germany and Japan with a pacified population ( the administration's favorite pre-war comparison) for sixty years - so far.

 

And I think you're missing mine. We attacked him, or his forces twice, three times if you count cruise attacks. He had WMD the first time. And yet, at no point did this 'threat' to the US attack us, directly or indirectly.

I would have added the number of times the US was attacked directly or indirectly during that time by other, less 'threatening' nations, but I can't keep count.

The idea that he was a threat to us, let alone an imminent one, or more so than other nations which have been involved in attacking the US is simply without legs.

 

Iraq has been involved in 2 external military conflicts in Saddam's @30 year reign. In that time Israel has been involved in over 7 external military conflicts, and the US's number beats all comers by far. The last time Iraq attacked anyone was over a decade ago, during which time we have been involved in several military operations. Of those 2 Iraqi operations, at least 1 if not both met with our approval/assistance at the time.

How do you define someone who has an impact on instability?